We studied the formation of supraparticles from nanocrystals confined in slowly evaporating oil droplets in an oil-in-water emulsion. The nanocrystals consist of an FeO core, a CoFe2O4 shell, and oleate capping ligands, with an overall diameter of 12.5 nm. We performed in situ small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering experiments during the entire period of solvent evaporation and colloidal crystallization. We observed a slow increase in the volume fraction of nanocrystals inside the oil droplets up to 20%, at which a sudden crystallization occurs. Our computer simulations show that crystallization at such a low volume fraction is only possible if attractive interactions between colloidal nanocrystals are taken into account in the model as well. The spherical supraparticles have a diameter of about 700 nm and consist of a few crystalline face-centered cubic domains. Nanocrystal supraparticles bear importance for magnetic and optoelectronic applications, such as color tunable biolabels, color tunable phosphors in LEDs, and miniaturized lasers.
We studied the formation of supraparticles from nanocrystals confined in slowly evaporating oil droplets in an oil-in-water emulsion. The nanocrystals consist of an FeO core, a CoFe2O4 shell, and oleate capping ligands, with an overall diameter of 12.5 nm. We performed in situ small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering experiments during the entire period of solvent evaporation and colloidal crystallization. We observed a slow increase in the volume fraction of nanocrystals inside the oil droplets up to 20%, at which a sudden crystallization occurs. Our computer simulations show that crystallization at such a low volume fraction is only possible if attractive interactions between colloidal nanocrystals are taken into account in the model as well. The spherical supraparticles have a diameter of about 700 nm and consist of a few crystalline face-centered cubic domains. Nanocrystal supraparticles bear importance for magnetic and optoelectronic applications, such as color tunable biolabels, color tunable phosphors in LEDs, and miniaturized lasers.
The self-assembly
of colloids
into larger periodic structures is a phenomenon commonly observed
in nature. For example, opals form by colloidal crystallization of
highly monodisperse spherical particles with diameters in the 100–1000
nm range.[1−3] In the last two decades, there has been more and
more focus on colloids with sizes in the nanometer range.[4] Assembly of colloidal nanocrystals (NCs) dispersed
in nonpolar solutions has been studied extensively.[5−9] Single- and binary-component NC superlattices have
been realized as three-dimensional crystals,[6,10] thin
films,[9] and in some cases even as two-dimensional
sheets with a large variety of NCs.[8,9,11−15] In this field of nanoscience, there is a quest to design superstructures
with tunable optical, magnetic, and electric properties that emerge
from the properties of the building blocks, and the quantum mechanical
and dipolar interactions between them.[6,7]Recently,
several groups realized that a versatile route to obtain
hierarchical nanocrystal superstructures is through the self-assembly
of so-called supraparticles (SPs):[16] particles
built up from nanoparticles. Several of us used the slow drying of
emulsion droplets as the way to arrive at SPs that are thus self-assembled
in a spherical confinement.[17−19] These supraparticles are nearly
spherical with diameters in the 100 to 10000 nm range; they may show
a periodic ordering of the NC building blocks and crystalline facets,
if the constituent NC building blocks have a sufficiently low polydispersity
(<10%). Designer SPs based on CdSe/(Cd,Zn)S core–shell building
blocks have attracted interest for their tunable emission, from pure
colors to white light,[18] and for the appearance
of whispering gallery modes.[19]Despite
the broad applicability of NC assembly in spherical confinement
and the obvious scientific and technologic interest, the study of
the kinetic and mechanistic aspects has been addressed in only a few
reports so far.[17,20−24] However, the growth of nanocrystal superstructures
as thin films or even two-dimensional sheets got much more attention
with time-resolved, in situ synchrotron X-ray scattering
methods.[25−27]Here, we report a thorough real-time, in situ study
of the colloidal crystallization of nanocrystals in spherical confinement.
Using time-resolved wide-angle and small-angle X-ray scattering data
(WAXS and SAXS), we followed the crystallization process over a wave
vector () range of 5 × 10–3 to 34 nm–1 and thus, in a large
spatial domain, obtaining information ranging from the shrinking oil
droplets to the position of the NCs inside the droplets. This study
allowed us to propose a mechanism for the colloidal crystallization
of our NCs in the spherical confinement of an oil droplet. The model
system chosen for this study is FeO/CoFe2O4 core/shell
NCs, as they have been shown to easily form crystalline SPs[17] and because the shape of these NCs can be tuned
from spherical to cubic.[28] By comparison
of our data with simulations on the crystallization mechanism of hard
spheres,[17] it is clear that in the confined
assembly of FeO/CoFe2O4 core/shell NCs of more
than 10 nm in diameter, attractions between the NCs must be taken
into account.
In Situ X-ray Scattering
We performed in situ WAXS and SAXS measurements at the ID02 beamline of ESRF in Grenoble.
A scheme of the experimental setup is shown in Figure . The “oil droplets” of the
oil-in-water emulsion form, in fact, a suspension themselves: they
consist of FeO/CoFe2O4 core/shell NCs of 10.5
± 1.2 nm overall diameter (Figures a and S20–21) dispersed in cyclohexane, the initial NC volume fraction being
0.0077 ± 0.0012 (see SI for details
about droplets formation). The CoFe2O4 shell
around the core has a thickness of approximately 1.5 nm.[29] Colloidal crystallization and the formation
of SPs in the confined volume of the oil droplets were initiated by
increasing the NC concentration upon evaporation of the cyclohexane.
The emulsion was, therefore, heated to 68 °C in a reaction vessel
(left part of Figure b). During this process, the oil-in-water suspension was pumped through
a capillary through which the collimated X-ray beam passed. The scattered
beam was detected by a WAXS detector that collected the atomic diffraction
from the system. Detection at small angles (SAXS) occurred using three
different sample-to-detector distances: 1, 5, and 30 m (see Figure ). In such a way,
the scattered signal could be detected over a broad wave vector region
(5 × 10–3 to 34 nm–1), and
structural information on the nanocrystal organization in the oil
droplet was obtained on length scales spanning from ∼2.5 μm
to 0.1 nm. Hence, we were able to follow the fate of the oil droplets
and that of the nanocrystals inside each droplet, in situ, and in real time (Figure S19).
Figure 1
Scheme of the
experimental setup and of the experimental conditions
in which the self-assembly was investigated. (a) Representative TEM
image of FeO/CoFe2O4 NCs used in these measurements.
(b) Emulsion, while heated and stirred in a vial in order to evaporate
the nonpolar phase, is pumped through a capillary using a peristaltic
pump. The emulsion is then probed, while in the capillary, by X-rays.
The experiment has been performed three times with the SAXS detector
at three different distances, 1, 5, and 30 m, in order to probe the
full range: from the region where
the NCs scatter up to the region where the droplets and, later, the
SPs scatter. (c) Representative SE-STEM image of a SP made of FeO/CoFe2O4 NCs as obtained from this experiment.
Scheme of the
experimental setup and of the experimental conditions
in which the self-assembly was investigated. (a) Representative TEM
image of FeO/CoFe2O4 NCs used in these measurements.
(b) Emulsion, while heated and stirred in a vial in order to evaporate
the nonpolar phase, is pumped through a capillary using a peristaltic
pump. The emulsion is then probed, while in the capillary, by X-rays.
The experiment has been performed three times with the SAXS detector
at three different distances, 1, 5, and 30 m, in order to probe the
full range: from the region where
the NCs scatter up to the region where the droplets and, later, the
SPs scatter. (c) Representative SE-STEM image of a SP made of FeO/CoFe2O4 NCs as obtained from this experiment.
Evolution of the X-ray Scattering Patterns
over a Broad Wave
Vector Range
The time-resolved X-ray scattering signal during
solvent evaporation and NC colloidal crystallization is presented
in Figure . Panel
(a) displays the time-resolved scattering patterns over the entire range. In the high range, the signal is modulated by the form factor of the
spherical NCs. From the position and the depth of the minima, we can
quantify the size of the NCs and their polydispersity: the NCs are
10.7 nm in diameter with a polydispersity of ∼9% (Figure S21). This is in good agreement with the
values of 10.5 ± 1.2 nm obtained from transmission electron microscopy
(TEM) images (Figures a and S20). In the small region, the scattering pattern is modulated by
the form factor of the cyclohexane/NCs droplets in the water medium
(see arrows in Figure a). We can extract the initial size of the droplets being ∼3.2
μm, with a polydispersity of ∼21%, in good agreement
with ex situ optical microscopy measurements of the
oil droplets (Figure S23 in the SI).
Figure 2
Time-resolved
X-ray scattering patterns of the self-assembly. (a)
Scattering patterns of the emulsion over time; the crystallization
in ordered SPs is confirmed by the appearance of structure factor
peaks in the region associated with NC scattering. The arrows indicate
the first minima of the form factor relative to the scattering from
the droplets/SPs. (b) Droplet size as a function of the reaction time.
The error bars in dark blue show the error in the determination of
the size relative to each point. (c) Volume fraction of NCs in the
droplet as a function of time. The error bars in light red show the
error in the determination of the volume fraction relative to each
point. (d) Percentage of NCs not assembled in an SP over time; the
crystallization is highlighted by the sharp change in the slope of
the curve.
Time-resolved
X-ray scattering patterns of the self-assembly. (a)
Scattering patterns of the emulsion over time; the crystallization
in ordered SPs is confirmed by the appearance of structure factor
peaks in the region associated with NC scattering. The arrows indicate
the first minima of the form factor relative to the scattering from
the droplets/SPs. (b) Droplet size as a function of the reaction time.
The error bars in dark blue show the error in the determination of
the size relative to each point. (c) Volume fraction of NCs in the
droplet as a function of time. The error bars in light red show the
error in the determination of the volume fraction relative to each
point. (d) Percentage of NCs not assembled in an SP over time; the
crystallization is highlighted by the sharp change in the slope of
the curve.During cyclohexane evaporation,
taking ∼4.5–5 h,
the droplets shrink, increasing the NC concentration. This shrinkage
can be followed over time by the change in the position of the form
factor minima (see arrows in Figure a). The diameter of the droplets decreases linearly
with time (Figure b), with an average value of 6.5 nm/min, indicating that the rate
of solvent evaporation is determined by the droplet surface area,
and that the intrinsic evaporation rate per unit of area is constant,
independent of the droplet size (see SI for details). After ∼270–290 min, we observe a sudden
“apparent” decrease in the droplet size from ∼1040
to ∼690 nm, which would correspond to a 70% decrease in the
droplet volume. We remark that such a sudden and strong shrinkage
of the suspension droplets is unlikely, and therefore, we name this
an “apparent” decrease and not a true decrease in droplet
size. We believe that the sudden shrinkage is due to X-ray scattering
on an object with high electron density, which suddenly emerges from
the NC dispersion. The simplest interpretation is that this object
is an NC SP with a considerably larger NC density formed by colloidal
crystallization (Figures S9–S14).
In the SI, we show that alternative explanations
based on simulated scattering patterns cannot explain the results.
In particular, while we cannot fully exclude that a particle monolayer
is adsorbed at the interface (as considerable adsorption energies
have been predicted) from the scattering pattern (see Figure S15), this is clearly not related to the
nucleation of the SPs that are observed in our results. Our interpretation
that colloidal crystallization has started in the bulk of the droplet
is corroborated by the concomitant appearance of structure factor
peaks in the high region of the scattering
pattern (Figure a).Knowing the size of the droplets and the initial NC volume fraction
in the dispersion, we quantified the NC volume fraction in the dispersion
in the droplets during solvent evaporation (Figure c). The NC volume fraction steadily increases
over time from the initial value of 0.0077 ± 0.0012. At the moment
of the crystallization, the volume fraction has a value of 0.20, and
we observe an apparent increase in the volume fraction up to the value
of 0.74, typical for a colloidal crystal with a face-centered-cubic
(FCC) packing. According to the crystallization model for hard spheres,
crystallization should occur at ∼0.5 NC volume fraction.[30] In our case, crystallization occurs at a much
lower volume fraction, indicating the existence of attractive forces
between the NCs (further discussion follows below).The WAXS
signal shows reflections of the atomic planes of the FeO
and CoFe2O4 crystals (Figure S16), in agreement with the TEM data (Figure S20). Since we are sampling over many SPs we have no information
on possible alignment of the NCs in one SP (see SI for details).
Analysis of the Structure Factor Peaks
By integration
of the scattering intensity of the structure factor peaks (see SI for details) in the high range (5 × 10–1 to 6 nm–1), we are able to estimate the percentage of NCs dispersed, compared
to those present in the SPs, over time during oil evaporation (Figure d). We assume that
at time zero all the NCs were dispersed, and that, upon the shrinkage
of the droplets indicating the crystallization, all the NCs are present
in the SPs. We can then fit the data in Figure d (for t > 270 min) with
a single exponential (see Figure S5 in the SI), yielding an average time constant for the NC crystallization process
in a droplet of 7.5 min (see SI for details).Now, we focus on the mechanism of NC crystallization into SPs by
the analysis of the evolution of the structure factor peaks over time
(Figure a). The first
peak arises at 0.51 nm–1, corresponding to the reflection
of the {111} planes in an FCC NC lattice. The peak can be fitted with
a Lorentzian (Figure S2). The distance
between adjacent NCs in the SP can be obtained from the position of
the peak (Figure b,c),
and the spatial extent of the periodic order from the full-width at
half-maximum (fwhm) (Figure b,c and see SI for details on the
methods). After a sharp change in the initial stage of the crystallization,
the fwhm stabilizes to a constant value. We derive that the average
crystalline domain size increases to a value of 260 nm, i.e., roughly
2.5 times smaller than the average SP size observed from the form
factor scattering of the SP. Hence, each SP consists of 10–15
crystalline domains on average. The peak position shifts steadily
toward higher values (Figure b). The derived average distance
between adjacent NCs in the SP is initially 14.3 nm, roughly corresponding
to the size of two NCs with extended ligands (oleate) around them.
This distance steadily decreases to 13.6 nm and then slowly to 13.3
nm. This decrease in the NC–NC distance must reflect interpenetration
of the oleate ligands of the two adjacent ligand shells.
Figure 3
Crystallization
of the NCs in FCC SPs. (a) SAXS patterns at high at different times during the crystallization.
(b) Variation of the peak position (dots) and relative peak width
(lines) of the first structure factor peak (0.5 nm–1) over time. (c) Variation of the NC–NC distance (blue) and
average crystalline domain size (red) over time. (d) Indexing of the
first 21 reflections of an FCC lattice in the scattering pattern of
the SPs.
Crystallization
of the NCs in FCC SPs. (a) SAXS patterns at high at different times during the crystallization.
(b) Variation of the peak position (dots) and relative peak width
(lines) of the first structure factor peak (0.5 nm–1) over time. (c) Variation of the NC–NC distance (blue) and
average crystalline domain size (red) over time. (d) Indexing of the
first 21 reflections of an FCC lattice in the scattering pattern of
the SPs.All structure factor peaks originate
from reflections from different
crystal planes in the NC superlattice, which allowed us to identify
the crystal structure of the SP as FCC (Figure d). We were able to index as many as 21 reflections,
which landmarks the excellent crystallinity of our SPs. The position
of the structure factor peaks was also compared to those of the random
hexagonal-close-packed (RHCP) and hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) structures
(Figure S22). Our analysis, however, unambiguously
showed that the structure factor peaks can only be indexed as originating
from an FCC colloidal crystal.
Mechanism of Colloidal Crystallization in
Spherical Confinement
Recently, the colloidal crystallization
of nanocrystals in spherical
confinement has been simulated by assuming that the nanocolloids act
as hard spheres.[17] It was found that crystallization
sets in at a NC volume fraction of ∼0.5; crystal nuclei that
have a NC volume fraction of 0.55 are formed by heterogeneous nucleation
at the surface of the oil droplets. In our case, crystallization starts
at a much lower volume fraction of ∼0.20. This suggests that
NC–NC attractions should be incorporated in the model, as also
supported by computer simulations presented below. It has been previously
shown that in nearly ideal dispersions, the crystallization of small
(<8 nm in diameter) semiconductor NCs can be seen as hard-sphere
crystallization.[14,31] However, in many other cases
the formation of NC superlattices by self-assembly was understood
on the basis of a subtle balance of entropy arguments and NC–NC
attractions.[7,9] Analysis of the state of a dispersion
of nanocrystals in organic solvents indicated that the NC–NC
attraction corresponds to a pair potential of a few times the thermal
energy at room temperature, increasing with the size of the nanocrystals.[32,33] This was also corroborated by calculations of the effective NC interactions
(see SI).[14]We propose a mechanism of crystallization that is schematically shown
in Figure . In the
initial stage, the NCs are homogeneously distributed in the oil droplets.
Regarding the X-ray scattering, such NC/oil droplets can be assumed
as having a homogeneous electron density, with a scattering length
density somewhere between that of the cyclohexane and the NC solid.
Over time the scattering contrast increases due to the densification
of the NCs in the oil droplets. This temporal regime shows a gradual
and constant decrease in the droplet size with time. We then observe
a critical time regime of a few minutes in which the scattering pattern
changes dramatically. This is attributed to the NC crystallization
in the oil droplets occurring at a volume fraction of ∼0.20,
which is corroborated by the sudden appearance of FCC structure factor
peaks. One or more crystalline SP(s) start(s) to form via homogeneous
nucleation inside each oil droplet, growing by NC addition and, possibly,
aggregation of smaller SPs into a larger one. The scattered X-ray
photons in the low- region are now
mainly due to the growing SP, the SP being considerably smaller than
the oil droplet itself. In fact, the droplets can be seen as consisting
of a strongly scattering core (the NC SP) and a weakly scattering
shell of the remaining cyclohexane. The scattering length density
difference, i.e., the contrast, of the SP compared to the cyclohexane
is ∼350 times stronger. This explains the sudden “apparent”
decrease of the size of the oil droplet. In the final stage, the remaining
cyclohexane evaporates, leaving the SP covered by a layer of surfactants,
which will enable its dispersion in water.
Figure 4
Crystallization mechanism.
In the initial state (volume fraction,
φ < 0.20), the NCs are homogeneously distributed in the droplet;
when the volume fraction of NCs becomes critical (φ ≈
0.20), a nucleation event starts inside the droplet. After a certain
time, the NCs are nearly all assembled in the SP, which is still inside
the droplet. Upon complete evaporation of the cyclohexane, the SP
is covered by a layer of surfactants and suspended in water.
Crystallization mechanism.
In the initial state (volume fraction,
φ < 0.20), the NCs are homogeneously distributed in the droplet;
when the volume fraction of NCs becomes critical (φ ≈
0.20), a nucleation event starts inside the droplet. After a certain
time, the NCs are nearly all assembled in the SP, which is still inside
the droplet. Upon complete evaporation of the cyclohexane, the SP
is covered by a layer of surfactants and suspended in water.
Computer Simulations
In order to
support our hypothesis
on the crystallization mechanism, we perform event-driven Brownian
dynamics (EDBD) simulations of 100 000 NCs interacting with
an attractive square-well potential in a slowly shrinking droplet
as modeled by a spherical hard wall (see SI for details). As the confinement shrinks, the volume fraction of
the nanoparticles in the droplet increases. At volume fraction (η)
≈ 0.11, we observe the formation of multiple crystalline nuclei
(Figure a), which
are identified using a bond-orientational order parameter and a cluster
criterion (see SI for further details).
We clearly observe from Figure a that the crystallization proceeds via homogeneous nucleation
of multiple crystallites in the bulk and is not induced by crystallization
at the wall as in the case of pure hard spheres (animations S1 and
S2 in SI).[17] With further increase in volume fraction, we observe that the nuclei
merge and form a single crystalline domain that becomes eventually
spherical due to the shrinking confinement. Remarkably, we observe
that the surface of our SP assembled from attractive NCs shows ledges
and facets indicating that the crystallization is not surface-induced.
This should be contrasted to the case of SPs formed from hard spheres,
which show a much smoother surface (Figure S24). In order to investigate the evolution of the crystallization mechanism,
we plot in Figure b the fraction of the crystalline particles as a function of the
volume fraction (time) for attractive NCs and for pure hard spheres. Figure b shows that (i)
the onset of the crystallization for attractive NCs is at a much lower
volume fraction (η ≈ 0.11) than for hard-sphere NCs (η
≈ 0.5) and that (ii) the crystallization of attractive NCs
occurs via homogeneous nucleation, while it proceeds through heterogeneous
nucleation for hard-sphere NCs, which can also be appreciated from
the corresponding thumbnails of Figure b, showing a cross-section of the attractive and hard-sphere
NC SPs after crystallization has set in. We remark that a more quantitative
agreement, between simulations and experiments, in the estimated volume
fraction at which there is an onset of crystallization, could be obtained
by tuning the strength of the attraction between the NCs. Furthermore,
the increase in the fraction of crystalline particles with volume
fraction is very steep, indicating a very rapid crystallization process,
which is in qualitative agreement with the experimental observations.
Finally, we show in Figure c (i) the number of crystalline particles in the largest crystal
domain as a function of volume fraction (time) (in green), which increases
in time until ∼83% of the NCs constitute the main crystal,
and (ii) the number of crystal nuclei (in purple), which shows a peak
during the shrinking process and finally decays to one corresponding
to the formation of a single cluster. Both trends support our proposed
crystallization mechanism.
Figure 5
Computer simulations. (a) Cross-section (through
the center) of
the SP at different times (t/τMD) in a slowly shrinking spherical confinement. The crystallization
proceeds through homogeneous nucleation of multiple crystal nuclei,
which merge together at long simulation times to form a single crystalline
domain. Colors are assigned randomly to distinct different nuclei
in every time snapshot (cyan always denotes disordered particles).
(b) Number of crystalline particles as a function of volume fraction
for attractive NCs and hard-sphere NCs in a shrinking spherical confinement.
The onset of the crystallization for attractive NCs is at a much lower
volume fraction (η ≈ 0.11) than for hard-sphere NCs (η
≈ 0.5). The thumbnails show a cross-section of the attractive
and hard-sphere NC SPs after crystallization has set in, thereby demonstrating
that the crystallization of attractive NCs occurs via homogeneous
nucleation, while it proceeds through heterogeneous nucleation for
hard-sphere NCs. (c) Size of the largest cluster and the number of
differently oriented clusters as a function of volume fraction (time).
Eventually there is only one main crystalline domain.
Computer simulations. (a) Cross-section (through
the center) of
the SP at different times (t/τMD) in a slowly shrinking spherical confinement. The crystallization
proceeds through homogeneous nucleation of multiple crystal nuclei,
which merge together at long simulation times to form a single crystalline
domain. Colors are assigned randomly to distinct different nuclei
in every time snapshot (cyan always denotes disordered particles).
(b) Number of crystalline particles as a function of volume fraction
for attractive NCs and hard-sphere NCs in a shrinking spherical confinement.
The onset of the crystallization for attractive NCs is at a much lower
volume fraction (η ≈ 0.11) than for hard-sphere NCs (η
≈ 0.5). The thumbnails show a cross-section of the attractive
and hard-sphere NC SPs after crystallization has set in, thereby demonstrating
that the crystallization of attractive NCs occurs via homogeneous
nucleation, while it proceeds through heterogeneous nucleation for
hard-sphere NCs. (c) Size of the largest cluster and the number of
differently oriented clusters as a function of volume fraction (time).
Eventually there is only one main crystalline domain.We studied the mechanism of the self-assembly of
colloidal NCs
into NC SPs in a NC dispersion being confined to an oil droplet dispersed
in water. We performed in situ small- and wide-angle
X-ray scattering experiments at the ID02 beamline at ESRF, Grenoble.
Our results showed that colloidal crystallization sets in at a NC
volume fraction of ∼0.20; this indicates that attractive interactions
between the NCs are important as a driving force for the self-assembly.
The completion of the crystallization of the SPs takes on average
about 7.5 min to incorporate all NCs. The SPs themselves consist of
a few FCC crystalline domains. SPs bear importance for optoelectronic
applications, as color tunable biolabels, phosphors in LEDS, and possibly
also miniaturized lasers.
Authors: Maryna I Bodnarchuk; Liang Li; Alice Fok; Sigrid Nachtergaele; Rustem F Ismagilov; Dmitri V Talapin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Wiel H Evers; Bart De Nijs; Laura Filion; Sonja Castillo; Marjolein Dijkstra; Daniel Vanmaekelbergh Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Matteo Cargnello; Aaron C Johnston-Peck; Benjamin T Diroll; Eric Wong; Bianca Datta; Divij Damodhar; Vicky V T Doan-Nguyen; Andrew A Herzing; Cherie R Kagan; Christopher B Murray Journal: Nature Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Mark Klokkenburg; Roel P A Dullens; Willem K Kegel; Ben H Erné; Albert P Philipse Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Xingchen Ye; Jun Chen; Michael Engel; Jaime A Millan; Wenbin Li; Liang Qi; Guozhong Xing; Joshua E Collins; Cherie R Kagan; Ju Li; Sharon C Glotzer; Christopher B Murray Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2013-05-12 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Jos van Rijssel; Ben H Erné; Johannes D Meeldijk; Marianna Casavola; Daniël Vanmaekelbergh; Andries Meijerink; Albert P Philipse Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: M P Boneschanscher; W H Evers; J J Geuchies; T Altantzis; B Goris; F T Rabouw; S A P van Rossum; H S J van der Zant; L D A Siebbeles; G Van Tendeloo; I Swart; J Hilhorst; A V Petukhov; S Bals; D Vanmaekelbergh Journal: Science Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Bart de Nijs; Simone Dussi; Frank Smallenburg; Johannes D Meeldijk; Dirk J Groenendijk; Laura Filion; Arnout Imhof; Alfons van Blaaderen; Marjolein Dijkstra Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2014-08-31 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Jaco J Geuchies; Carlo van Overbeek; Wiel H Evers; Bart Goris; Annick de Backer; Anjan P Gantapara; Freddy T Rabouw; Jan Hilhorst; Joep L Peters; Oleg Konovalov; Andrei V Petukhov; Marjolein Dijkstra; Laurens D A Siebbeles; Sandra van Aert; Sara Bals; Daniel Vanmaekelbergh Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Federico Montanarella; Margherita Biondi; Stijn O M Hinterding; Daniel Vanmaekelbergh; Freddy T Rabouw Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Federico Montanarella; Darius Urbonas; Luke Chadwick; Pepijn G Moerman; Patrick J Baesjou; Rainer F Mahrt; Alfons van Blaaderen; Thilo Stöferle; Daniel Vanmaekelbergh Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Da Wang; Michiel Hermes; Stan Najmr; Nikos Tasios; Albert Grau-Carbonell; Yang Liu; Sara Bals; Marjolein Dijkstra; Christopher B Murray; Alfons van Blaaderen Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Emanuele Marino; Alice Sciortino; Annemarie Berkhout; Katherine E MacArthur; Marc Heggen; Tom Gregorkiewicz; Thomas E Kodger; Antonio Capretti; Christopher B Murray; A Femius Koenderink; Fabrizio Messina; Peter Schall Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 15.881