| Literature DB >> 30069248 |
Yakub Fam1, Thomas L Sheppard1,2, Ana Diaz3, Torsten Scherer4, Mirko Holler3, Wu Wang4, Di Wang4, Patrice Brenner5, Arne Wittstock6, Jan-Dierk Grunwaldt1,2.
Abstract
Tomographic imaging of catalysts allows non-invasive investigation of structural features and chemical properties by combining large fields of view, high spatial resolution, and the ability to probe multiple length scales. Three complementary nanotomography techniques, (i) electron tomography, (ii) focused ion beam-scanning electron microscopy, and (iii) synchrotron ptychographic X-ray computed tomography, were applied to render the 3D structure of monolithic nanoporous gold doped with ceria, a catalytically active material with hierarchical porosity on the nm and μm scale. The resulting tomograms were used to directly measure volume fraction, surface area and pore size distribution, together with 3D pore network mapping. Each technique is critically assessed in terms of approximate spatial resolution, field of view, sample preparation and data processing requirements. Ptychographic X-ray computed tomography produced 3D electron density maps with isotropic spatial resolution of 23 nm, the highest so far demonstrated for a catalyst material, and is highlighted as an emerging method with excellent potential in the field of catalysis.Entities:
Keywords: electron microscopy; nanomaterials; ptychography; synchrotron radiation; tomography
Year: 2018 PMID: 30069248 PMCID: PMC6055843 DOI: 10.1002/cctc.201800230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ChemCatChem ISSN: 1867-3880 Impact factor: 5.686
Figure 1(a) Overview of CeOx/np‐Au sample preparation procedure via FIB for each of the three nanotomography methods and SEM images (secondary electron detection) of prepared samples: (b) lamella for ET; (c) cylinder for PXCT; (d) cuboid for FIB‐SEM‐CT.
Figure 22D perspective of the internal catalyst structure acquired by: (a) PXCT—orthographic slice through the phase contrast tomogram following reconstruction; (b) FIB‐SEM‐CT—secondary electron image of a typical surface exposed during cutting; (c) STEM image of CeOx/np‐Au and (d) corresponding EDX spectrum acquired from the shaded area.
Figure 3Volume rendering of (a) whole and (b) bisected CeOx/np‐Au cylinder via PXCT; (c) whole and (d) bisected CeOx/np‐Au cuboid via FIB‐SEM‐CT; (e) CeOx/np‐Au lamella to scale (above) and magnified (below) as observed via ET. Ortho slice planes indicated by red lines.
Measurement characteristics of volume‐rendered CeOx/np‐Au from three nanotomography techniques.
| Method | Approx. Spatial | Pixel | Probed | Average | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution | Size | Volume | Ligament | Pore Size | Pore | |
| [nm] | [nm] | [μm3] | Size [nm] | [nm] | Sphericity | |
| PXCT | 23[a] | 13.3 | 9.72×9.72×7.33 | 211±23 | 288±23 | 0.57 |
| FIB‐SEM | 15‐45[b] | 12.8 | 9.91×11.7×2.62 | 277±15 | 195±15 | 0.62 |
| ET | 1‐3[b] | 1.3 | 2.66×2.66×0.30 | 75±2 | 61±2 | 0.81 |
[a] Half‐period resolution determined by Fourier shell correlation. [b] Full‐period resolution determined by material interface analysis.
Figure 4Normalised distribution profile showing (a) pore size and (b) ligament size of CeOx/np‐Au calculated from three nanotomography techniques.
Calculated physical properties of CeO2/np‐Au following tomographic label analysis.
| Method | Sample | CeOx/npAu | Pore | Porosity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | Area | S.A. | Volume | Area |
| [%] | |||
| [μm3] | [μm2] | [m2 g−1] | [μm3] | [μm2] | [m3 g−1] | ||||
| PXCT | Total | 205.6 | 7498 | 2.06 | 304 | 7718 | 0.083 | 60 | |
| Sub‐V 1 | 0.05 | 2.94 | 3.3 | 0.079 | 3.25 | 0.089 | 61 | ||
| Sub‐V 2 | 0.043 | 2.49 | 3.3 | 0.087 | 2.8 | 0.115 | 67 | ||
| Sub‐V 3 | 0.047 | 1.98 | 2.41 | 0.083 | 2.22 | 0.101 | 64 | ||
| Sub‐V 4 | 0.052 | 2.13 | 2.32 | 0.078 | 2.45 | 0.085 | 60 | ||
| Sub‐V average | 0.048 | 2.39 | 2.83 | 0.082 | 2.68 | 0.098 | 63 | ||
| Sub‐V error[a] | ±0.015 | ±0.02 | – | ±0.015 | ±0.02 | – | – | ||
| FIB‐SEM‐CT | Total | 190.4 | 5265 | 1.56 | 123.8 | 5425 | 0.037 | 39 | |
| Sub‐V 1 | 0.089 | 2.85 | 1.81 | 0.039 | 2.21 | 0.025 | 31 | ||
| Sub‐V 2 | 0.083 | 2.99 | 2.03 | 0.045 | 2.47 | 0.031 | 35 | ||
| Sub‐V 3 | 0.081 | 2.99 | 2.09 | 0.047 | 2.54 | 0.033 | 37 | ||
| Sub‐V 4 | 0.09 | 3.55 | 2.22 | 0.038 | 3.07 | 0.024 | 30 | ||
| Sub‐V average | 0.086 | 3.1 | 2.04 | 0.042 | 2.57 | 0.028 | 33 | ||
| Sub‐V error[a] | ±0.015 | ±0.02 | – | ±0.015 | ±0.02 | – | – | ||
| ET | Total | 0.998 | 53.85 | 3.043 | 1.104 | 62.77 | 0.062 | 52.5 | |
[a] Based on uncertainty of 20 nm (i.e. approx. 1 pixel) propagated in 2D (μm2) and 3D (μm3).
Figure 5Subvolume extraction showing: (a) PXCT data and (b) selection of four PXCT subvolumes; (c) FIB‐SEM‐CT data and (d) selection of four FIB‐SEM‐CT subvolumes. All subvolumes had dimensions of 500×500×500 nm3 and are highlighted in blue, volumes (b) and (d) rendered with transparency.
Figure 6Quantitative electron density of the CeOx/np‐Au sample visualised as: (a) orthographic slice through the 3D volume with pixel values converted to electron density; (b) the corresponding histogram of the 3D volume following background removal, showing the ideal positions of pure gold, pure ceria and air. Image background was excluded from the electron density counts.