| Literature DB >> 28387219 |
Alexander Surrey1,2, Kornelius Nielsch1, Bernd Rellinghaus1.
Abstract
The effect of an electron beam induced dehydrogenation of MgH2 in the transmission electron microscope (TEM) is largely underestimated by Nogita et al., and led the authors to a misinterpretation of their TEM observations. Firstly, the selected area diffraction (SAD) pattern is falsely interpreted. A re-evaluation of the SAD pattern reveals that no MgH2 is present in the sample, but that it rather consists of Mg and MgO only. Secondly, the transformation of the sample upon in-situ heating in the TEM cannot be ascribed to dehydrogenation, but is rather to be explained by the (nanoscale) Kirkendall effect, which leads to the formation of hollow MgO shells without any metallic Mg in their cores. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the TEM investigation are invalid, as the authors apparently have never studied MgH2.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28387219 PMCID: PMC5384078 DOI: 10.1038/srep44216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1SAD patterns of a nanocrystalline MgH2 particle.
The pattern in (a) was recorded under low dose conditions after irradiating the sample area for no longer but a few seconds. It shows both Mg and MgH2 diffraction spots. (b) After an exposure over 60 s, all MgH2 diffraction spots have vanished, and new Mg diffraction spots occur in the pattern.
Re-evaluation of the SAD pattern shown in Fig. 1 in ref. 8.
| Structure | <hkl> | Re-measured | Tabulated | Deviationa (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mg | <100> | — | 2.78b | — |
| Mg | <2–10> | — | 1.61b | — |
| <10–1> | 2.10 | 2.51 | 16.4 | |
| <020> | 2.10 | 2.26 | 7.1 | |
| <12–1> | 1.48 | 1.68 | 12.0 | |
| MgO | <200> | 2.10 | 2.10 | 0.1 |
| MgO | <220> | 1.48 | 1.49 | 0.5 |
| MgO | <212> | 1.39 | 1.40 | 1.1 |
The Mg diffraction spots are used for calibration. All other diffraction spots can clearly be better attributed to MgO rather than to MgH2.
aThe relative deviation is calculated from |d − d|/d.
bThese reflections were used to calibrate the SAD pattern.
Figure 2(a–c) Still frame TEM images. These images are selected from the in-situ heating video S1 (see Supplementary information) of the Mg particle that was obtained through electron beam induced dehydrogenation during the former acquisition of SAD patterns (cf. Fig. 1). Temperature and time stamp (format mm:ss) are indicated in the images, respectively. (d) SAD pattern of the sample at the end of the heating process at T = 500 °C. (e) Simulated electron diffraction ring pattern of MgO.