| Literature DB >> 36133337 |
Zichun Yan1, Anish Chaluvadi1,2, Sara FitzGerald3, Sarah Spence1, Christopher Bleyer1, Jiazhou Zhu2, Thomas M Crawford3, Rachel B Getman2, John Watt4, Dale L Huber5, O Thompson Mefford1.
Abstract
To investigate the influence of manganese substitution on the saturation magnetization of manganese ferrite nanoparticles, samples with various compositions (Mn x Fe3-x O4, x = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1) were synthesized and characterized. The saturation magnetization of such materials was both calculated using density functional theory and measured via vibrating sample magnetometry. A discrepancy was found; the computational data demonstrated a positive correlation between manganese content and saturation magnetization, while the experimental data exhibited an inverse correlation. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and magnetometry results indicated that the crystallite diameter and the magnetic diameter decrease when adding more manganese, which could explain the loss of magnetization of the particles. For 20 nm nanoparticles, with increasing manganese substitution level, the crystallite size decreases from 10.9 nm to 6.3 nm and the magnetic diameter decreases from 15.1 nm to 3.5 nm. Further high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) analysis confirmed the manganese substitution induced defects in the crystal lattice, which encourages us to find ways of eliminating crystalline defects to make more reliable ferrite nanoparticles. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36133337 PMCID: PMC9470023 DOI: 10.1039/d2na00200k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Particle diameters measured by TEM in comparison with crystallite diameters and lattice parameters measured by XRD, and magnetic diameters
| TEM mean diameter (nm) | XRD crystallite diameter (nm) (311) | Magnetic diameter (nm) | Lattice parameter (Å) (3 1 1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acac | Mn0 | 11.0 ± 3.1 | 3.5 | 7.3 ± 0.3 | 8.3 |
| Mn0.25 | 7.7 ± 2.1 | 3.9 | 5.8 ± 0.1 | 8.4 | |
| Mn0.5 | 7.4 ± 1.5 | 3.1 | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 8.5 | |
| Mn0.75 | 8.3 ± 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.2 ± 0.8 | 8.4 | |
| Mn1 | 7.6 ± 2.1 | 2.7 | N/A | 8.6 | |
| Oleate-1 | Mn0 | 9.5 ± 0.7 | 4.9 | 8.1 ± 0.2 | 8.3 |
| Mn0.25 | 10.1 ± 0.7 | 4.6 | 7.8 ± 0.3 | 8.4 | |
| Mn0.5 | 9.4 ± 0.8 | 3.9 | 6.4 ± 0.5 | 8.4 | |
| Mn0.75 | 9.9 ± 0.7 | 3.7 | 4.7 ± 0.9 | 8.5 | |
| Mn1 | 9.8 ± 0.8 | 4.1 | N/A | 8.4 | |
| Oleate-2 | Mn0 | 20.5 ± 1.3 | 10.9 | 15.1 ± 0.6 | 8.3 |
| Mn0.25 | 21.0 ± 1.4 | 9.4 | 11.0 ± 1.3 | 8.4 | |
| Mn0.5 | 17.8 ± 1.1 | 7.6 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 8.4 | |
| Mn0.75 | 23.8 ± 2.8 | 6.8 | N/A | 8.5 | |
| Mn1 | 20.3 ± 1.6 | 6.3 | N/A | 8.5 |
Fig. 1TEM image and size distribution histogram of Mn0–oleate-2 (left); the size summary of three series (right). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation from the mean.
Fig. 2EDX mapping of Mn0.75–Acac sample.
The value of x in a MnFe3−O4 composition calculated from ICP-OES data (EDS data)
| Mn0 | Mn0.25 | Mn0.5 | Mn0.75 | Mn1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acac | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.24 (0.23) | 0.42 (0.47) | 0.70 (0.68) | 1.00 (0.99) |
| Oleate-1 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0.64 |
| Oleate-2 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.69 | 0.78 |
Fig. 3Comparison between composition measured by ICP-OES and EDS.
Fig. 4Magnetization curves of 20 nm oleate-2 samples at 5 K and 300 K.
Saturation magnetization (VSM) at 300 K of particles of different batches (A m2 kg−1)
| Mn0 | Mn0.25 | Mn0.5 | Mn0.75 | Mn1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acac | 45.59 | 42.61 | 22.67 | 19.87 | 12.45 |
| Oleate-1 | 56.69 | 56.40 | 43.34 | 32.40 | 23.45 |
| Oleate-2 | 72.89 | 62.84 | 44.99 | 27.37 | 25.42 |
Fig. 5Saturation magnetization at 300 K of different samples (left). Comparison between computational and experimental (oleate-2, 20 nm) data of different levels of Mn substitution (right).
Fig. 6XRD results of 20 nm oleate-2 samples.
Fig. 7Crystallite sizes (left) and lattice parameters (right) of different samples calculated from XRD results.
Fig. 8HRTEM image of 20 nm oleate-2 samples. (a) HRTEM image of Mn0 oleate-2 and FFT image of the marked area; (b) zoom-in image of the marked area in (a); (c) inverse FFT image of FFT in (b). (d) HRTEM image of Mn1 oleate-2 and FFT image of the marked area; (e) zoom-in image of the marked area in (d); (f) inverse FFT image of FFT in (e).