| Literature DB >> 36134164 |
Zhanfeng Li1, Jun Dong1, Lun Wang1, Yongqiang Zhang2,3, Tingting Zhuang1, Huiqi Wang1, Xuejun Cui2, Zonghua Wang1.
Abstract
Ultrasound irradiation covers many chemical reactions crucially aiming to design and synthesize various structured materials as an enduring trend in frontier research studies. Here, we focus on the latest progress of ultrasound-assisted synthesis and present the basic principles or mechanisms of sonosynthesis (or sonochemical synthesis) from ultrasound irradiation in a brand new way, including primary sonosynthesis, secondary sonosynthesis, and synergetic sonosynthesis. This current review describes in detail the various sonochemical synthesis strategies for nano-structured inorganic materials and the unique aspects of products including the size, morphology, structure, and properties. In addition, the review points out the probable challenges and technological potential for future advancement. We hope that such a review can provide a comprehensive understanding of sonosynthesis and emphasize the great significance of structured materials synthesis as a power-induced strategy broadening the updated applications of ultrasound. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 36134164 PMCID: PMC9418414 DOI: 10.1039/d1na00038a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Fig. 1General applications of ultrasound in chemistry, material, and manufacturing processes.
Fig. 2Schematic illustration of the hotspot formation under acoustic cavitation.
Fig. 3Schematic illustration and reaction zones of primary sonochemistry and secondary sonochemistry.
Fig. 4Sonochemiluminescence (left) observed in a luminol solution (pH 11.0, Na2CO3) under ultrasound irradiation (20 kHz, 33 W), in which the sonolysis of water involves several rapid primary and secondary reactions (right). Reproduced with permission.[42] Copyright 2018 American Chemical Society.
Fig. 5A variety of inorganic nanomaterials based on sonocatalysis.
Synthesis based on the primary sonocatalysis
| Precursor | Product | Experimental parameters under ultrasound | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fe(CO)5 | Porous iron | Decane, Ar atmosphere, 20 kHz, 100 W cm−2, sonication for 3 h |
|
| Mo(CO)6 | Mo2C | Hexadecane (50 mL), Ar atmosphere, 20 kHz, 100 W cm−2, 90 °C, sonication for 3 h |
|
| W(CO)6 | W2C/C | Diphenylmethane (50 mL), 20 kHz, 600 W, 32 W cm−2, 80 ± 2 °C, sonication for 30 min |
|
| Fe(CO)5 | Fe2–3N | Decane, NH3/H2 (3.5 : 1), 20 kHz, 100 W cm−2, 0 °C, sonication for 4 h |
|
| W(CO)6 or Mo(CO)6 | WOx or MoOx | Diphenylmethane and decalin (100 mL), ambient air, 20 kHz, 200 W, 80 °C, sonication for 3 h |
|
| Fe(CO)5 | Iron carbide@iron oxide core–shell nanoparticles | Oleic acid, 1-octanol (5 mL), 40 kHz, room temperature, sonication for 40 min |
|
| Fe(CO)5 | Iron colloid of Fe/FeO | Oleic acid, hexadecane, Ar atmosphere, 40 kHz, 30 °C, sonication for 1 h |
|
| Mo(CO)6 | Clustered MoS2 nanoparticles | Elemental sulfur, 1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene, Ar atmosphere, 20 kHz, 80 W cm−2, 80 °C, sonication for 1.5 h |
|
| Cu(CH3COO)2·H2O, Co(NO3)2·6H2O, Ni(NO3)2·6H2O | Nano-sized Cu( | Ahpv ligand, ethanol (10 mL), 24 kHz, 400 W |
|
| CuCl2 | [Cu(L)(H2O)Cl] | 2-((Pyridin-3-ylmethylene)amino)phenol (HL), MeOH (10 mL), 40 kHz, 400 W |
|
| Pb(NO3)2 | [Pb(L)(SCN)2] | l-Methylimidazole (L), KSCN, methanol, 60 W, 30 °C, sonication for 30 min |
|
| Gallium | Ga@C-dots | Decane, dodecane, hexadecane or polyethylene glycol, 20 kHz, 750 W, 50 °C or 60 °C, sonication for 3–180 min |
|
| Mo(CO)6 | MoO3-coated silica nanoparticles, hollow MoS2 | Silica spheres, elemental sulfur, isodurene, Ar atmosphere |
|
| Co4(CO)12 | Porous Co3O4 | Carbon nanotubes, hexane, sonication for 0.5 h |
|
| Fe(CO)5 | Hollow hematite | Carbon nanoparticles, hexadecane (40 mL), argon flow, 20 kHz, 50 W cm−2, 20 °C, sonication for 3 h |
|
| Si3H8 | Silicon nanoparticles | N2-filled atmosphere with residual traces of H2O and O2 (∼1 ppm), 26 kHz, 32–130 W cm−2, 1–4 W, 25–40 °C, sonication for 2 min |
|
|
| Single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes | Silica powder, ferrocene, |
|
| Dopamine hydrochloride | Nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots | Dimethylformamide (150 mL), 20 kHz, 600 W, sonication for 8 h |
|
Fig. 6TEM micrographs of conventionally prepared silica-templated MoO3 (A, B, C); TEM micrographs of sonochemically prepared hollow MoO3 nanospheres before (D) and after (E) thermal annealing thermal annealing at 350 °C, where insets show higher magnification; TEM micrographs of sonochemically prepared hollow MoS2 nanospheres after thermal annealing at 450 °C, and EDX line analysis across the single MoS2/SiO2 and hollow MoS2 (F). Reproduced with permission.[69] Copyright 2005 American Chemical Society.
Fig. 7(I) Schematic depiction of the growth and collapse of a bubble and the ensuing sonochemical effects enabling the synthesis of solid-state silicon: (a) during decompression cycles, an expanding bubble is preferentially filled with highly volatile trisilane (Si3H8); (b) upon bubble collapse, high transient temperatures and pressures result in the creation of a “hot spot”; (c) the implosion results in the generation of new silicon-containing species, namely an amorphous silicon (a-Si) particle, Si radicals (Si˙), and Si polymers. (II) Dark field STEM images depicting the effects of sonication conditions on Si-nanoparticle production: (a) monodisperse Si-nanoparticles synthesized with low tip amplitude (A = 48 μm) and high trisilane concentration (47 wt%); (b) larger Si-nanoparticles synthesized with both high A (192 μm) and high trisilane concentration; (c) blend of Si-nanoparticles synthesized with high A and low trisilane concentration (1 wt%). The insets show higher resolution images of the regions enclosed by the dashed boxes. Reproduced with permission.[72] Copyright 2017 Elsevier.
Secondary sonocatalysis synthesis of nanostructured metals from the nonvolatile precursors
| Precursor | Product | Experimental parameters under ultrasound | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAuCl4 | Au nanoparticles | Aqueous solution (70 mL or 200 mL), 1-propanol, argon atmosphere, 0.1 ± 0.01 W mL−1, 20–1062 kHz, 21 ± 2 °C |
|
| HAuCl4 | Au nanorods and nanoparticles | Aqueous solution (60 mL), CTAB, AgNO3, ascorbic acid, pH 3.5, argon atmosphere, 200 kHz, 200 W, 27 °C |
|
| HAuCl4 | Au nanodecahedra | PVP/DMF solution (15 mL), NaBH4, platinum nanoparticles (2–3 nm), 20 kHz, 60 W, 100 °C |
|
| HAuCl4 | Au nanobelts | Aqueous solution, α- |
|
| AgNO3, HAuCl4 | Ag nanoplates, Au nanorings | PVP, DMF solution (40 mL), ambient conditions, 20 kHz, 60 W cm−2, sonication for 0.5 h |
|
| HAuCl4 | Au nanocones | 2-Ethoxyaniline, hexane, aqueous solution, 35 kHz, 144 W, 45 °C, sonication for 90 min |
|
| NaAuCl4, PdCl2 | Core–shell Au/Pd bimetallic nanoparticles | Aqueous solution (60 mL), sodium dodecyl sulfate, 200 kHz, 200 W, 20 °C |
|
| HAuCl4, AgNO3 | Core–shell Au–Ag bimetallic nanoparticles | Aqueous solution (70 mL), polyethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, pH 3.5, argon atmosphere, 20 kHz, 23–47 W cm−3, room temperature, sonication for 30 min |
|
| H2PtCl6, HAuCl4 | Au–Pt bimetallic nanoparticles | Aqueous solution (6.0 mL), ascorbic acid solution (6.0 mL), sonication for 15 min |
|
| PtBr4, CuBr2 | PtCu3 bimetallic nanoparticles | Tetrahydrofuran (200 mL), 2-propanol (20 mL), lithium metal cuttings, naphthalene, 20 kHz, 15 W cm−2, −20 °C, sonication for 90 min |
|
| Pd(NO3)2, AgNO3 | PdAg nanoparticles | Ethylene glycol/water mixture (60 mL), vulcan carbon XC-72, N2 atmosphere, 20 kHz, sonication for 3 h (20 s/20 s, on/off) |
|
| Pd(acac)2, Ni(acac)2, Co(acac)2, Fe(acac)3, Mn(acac)2 | PdNi, PdCo, PdFe, PdMn nanoparticles | Ethylene glycol (30 mL), pure Ar, 20 kHz, 150 W, room temperature, sonication for 3 h |
|
| AuCl3 | Au nanoclusters | Toluene (4 mL), 30 W, 40 kHz, sonication for 0–180 min |
|
| AgNO3 | Ag nanoclusters | PMAA solutions (30 mL), pH 4.5, Ar flow, 20 kHz, 25 W cm−2, sonication for 10–180 min |
|
| AgNO3 | Ag nanoclusters | Aqueous solution (10 mL), BSA, pH 12, 50 W cm−2, 15 °C, sonication for 4 h (7 : 3, ultrasonic time/intermittent time) |
|
| AgNO3 | Ag nanoclusters | Aqueous solution (25 mL), glutathione, pH 5.0, 40 KHz, 60 W, sonication for 0–170 s |
|
| Cu(NO3)2 | Cu nanoclusters | Reduced glutathione, Cu(NO3)2, deionized water (5 mL), pH 6.0, sonication for 15 min |
|
Fig. 8(I) schematic overview the general mechanism and main steps for the synthesis of CdO and Cd(OH)2/Ag core/satellite nanorods. (II) TEM images of (a, b) CdO nanorods and (c, d) Cd(OH)2/Ag nanorods, where the inset shows the HRTEM image of CdO nanorods in Image b. (III) TEM (a) and HRTEM (b) images of Cd(OH)2/Ag nanorods. Reproduced with permission.[100] Copyright 2018 Elsevier.
Fig. 9(I) Schematic representation of the growth mechanism of CuWO4·2H2O and CuWO4 crystals obtained by the sonochemistry method: (a) reaction between complex ions; (b) appearance of the first CuWO4·2H2O nuclei; (c) rotation and alignment of nanocrystals, sharing common crystallographic planes; (d) self-assembly process; (e) aggregation of petal-like crystals; (f) formation of flower-like CuWO4·2H2O microcrystals; (g) crystal growth via heat treatment, (h) irregular stone-like CuWO4·2H2O microcrystals, (i) stone-like CuWO4·2H2O microcrystals and flake-like CuWO4 nanocrystals; (j) formation of aggregated CuWO4 nanocrystals; (k) crystal growth of flake-like CuWO4 nanocrystals. (II) FE-SEM images of CuWO4 crystals heat treated at different temperatures: (a) 100 °C, (b) 200 °C, (c) 300 °C, (d) 400 °C and (e) 500 °C for 1 h, respectively. Reproduced with permission.[103] Copyright 2017 Elsevier.
Fig. 10(I) The SEM images and size distributions of polydimethylsiloxane microspheres prepared using 4 mg mL−1 (a, b), 20 mg mL−1 (c, d), and 100 mg mL−1 (e, f) polydimethylsiloxane in hexanes, respectively. Reproduced with permission.[111] Copyright 2015 Wiley-VCH. (II) SEM (a) and TEM (b) images showing the hexagonal shape of the NaInS2 nanoplates produced via USP (the inset electron diffraction pattern in (b) demonstrates the single-crystalline nature), SEM image (c) of NaInS2 prepared through a non-USP method for comparison, and X-ray diffraction patterns (d) of the USP and non-USP materials. Reproduced with permission.[112] Copyright 2012 Wiley-VCH. (III) Morphology of MnO2 microspheres produced via USP varies at 150 °C (a–e) and 500 °C (f–j): TEM images (c, d, h, i) where increasing the reaction temperature caused the formation of larger crystals; SEM images (b, g); electron diffraction patterns (e, j). Reproduced with permission.[113] Copyright 2015 Wiley-VCH.
Sonocatalysis synthesis or exfoliation of graphene derivatives
| Product | Ultrasound | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| Graphene nanoribbons | 1500 W, 20 kHz |
|
| Graphene nanosheets | 500 W |
|
| Graphene nanosheets | 20 kHz, 750 W |
|
| Graphene nanosheets | — |
|
| Graphene dispersions | 51–52 W |
|
| Graphene oxide | 600 W |
|
| Graphene oxide | 40 kHz, 157 W |
|
| Graphite oxide | 360 W |
|
| Graphene oxide nanosheets | — |
|
| Reduced graphene oxide | 20 kHz, 400 W |
|
| Reduced graphene oxide | — |
|
| Reduced graphene oxide nanodispersion | 20 kHz, 1000 W or 750 W (ultrasound horn); 130–35 kHz, 200 W (ultrasonic bath) |
|
| Sulfonated graphene | 40 W |
|
| Sulfonated reduced graphene oxide | 37 kHz |
|
| Isocyanate-treated graphene oxide nanoplatelets | 150 W |
|
| Chitosan-modified nano-scale graphene oxide | >360 W |
|
Fig. 11(I) Schematic overview of the sonochemical deposition process for self-assembly of Ga@C-dots and Ga@C-dots@Ga NPs: (a) sonication set-up, (b) formation of Ga@C-dots/Ga@C-dots@Ga NPs, and (c) Ga@C-dots and Ga@C-dots@Ga NPs decorated on a glass substrate. (II) (a) SEM micrograph, (b) TEM images, (c) magnified view of single particles and (d) EDS spectrum of Ga@C-dots@Ga NPs. Reproduced with permission.[143] Copyright 2017 Royal Society of Chemistry.
Fig. 12(I) Schematic illustration of the two-step method for the fabrication of different thin MOF films. (II) SEM images of Cu-BTC with 0.5 mM BTC under ultrasonic irradiation for (a) 5 min, (b) 15 min, (c) 30 min, and (d) 60 min; SEM images of Cu-BDC with 1 mM BDC under ultrasonic irradiation for (e) 5 min, (f) 15 min, (g) 30 min, and (h) 60 min. (III) SEM images of ZIF-8 with 0.1 mM 2-MIM under ultrasonic irradiation for (a) 5 min, (b) 15 min, (c) 30 min, and (d) 60 min. SEM images of MOF-5 with 1 mM BDC under ultrasonic irradiation for (e) 5 min, (f) 15 min, (g) 30 min, and (h) 60 min. Reproduced with permission.[153] Copyright 2018 Elsevier.
Fig. 13(I) TEM images of BaFCl:Eu2+ nanoparticles which were prepared using EuBr in an ultrasonic bath for 30 min. (II) Eu2+-undoped (a) and Eu2+-doped (b) BaFCl nanoparticles suspended in BminBF4 under UV and daylight. Reproduced with permission.[156] Copyright 2018 Wiley-VCH.
Fig. 14TEM images of organic/BSA composites with a magnetic shell (A) and with a magnetic core (B); SEM images of organic/BSA composites with a magnetic shell (C) and with a magnetic core (D), where the close-up images lay in the inset of panel (C) and (D). Reproduced with permission.[166] Copyright 2019 Elsevier.