Search

Nanorods grow in two modes through physical vapor deposition (PVD). In mode I, monolayer surface steps dictate the diameter of nanorods. In mode II, multiple-layer surface steps dictate the diameter, which is the smallest possible under physical vapor deposition [X. B. Niu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 110, 136102 (2013) and F. Du & H. C. Huang, Phys. Rev. Materials. 1, 033401 (2017)]. This paper reports closed-form theories of terrace lengths and nanorod diameter during the growth in mode I, as a function of deposition conditions. The accompanying lattice kinetic Monte Carlo simulations verify the theories. This study reveals that (1) quasi-steady growth exists for each set of nanorod growth condition, (2) the characteristic length scales, including terrace lengths and nanorod diameter at the quasi-steady state, depend on the deposition conditions - deposition rate F, substrate temperature T, and incidence angle .

This Letter reports a generalized theory of the smallest diameter of metallic nanorods from physical vapor deposition. The generalization incorporates the effects of nanorod separation and those of van der Waals interactions on geometrical shadowing. In contrast, the previous theory for idealized geometrical shadowing [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 136102 (2013)] does not include any dependence on nanorod separation and it predicts the diameter to be about to of what the generalized theory does. As verification, numerical solutions and the generalized theory in closed-form agree in terms of effective deposition flux. As validation, experiments of physical vapor deposition and the generalized theory agree in terms of the diameter as a function of the separation of nanorods.

Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) has the capacity of detecting trace amount of biological or chemical matter, even single molecules, through the use of metallic nanostructures such as nanorods. Silver (Ag) and gold (Au) nanorods have led to the impressive enhancement of Raman signals, but they are either expensive, degrade fast over time, or suffer from poor sample repeatability. In contrast, Al is much less expensive, and Al nanorods could potentially be resistant to degradation over time due to the protection from native aluminum-oxide layers. Unfortunately, the controllable growth of Al nanorods has not been reported so far. This Letter reports, for the first time, the controllable growth of Al nanorods using physical vapor deposition (PVD); through the use of oxygen (O) surfactants. The enhancement factor of the Al nanorods in SERS is as high as 1250, and shows nearly no degradation after storage in ambient for 30 days or annealing at 475 K for one day.

Here, we report a process of metallic sealing using small well-separated Ag nanorods; the process is at room temperature under a small mechanical pressure of 9.0 MPa, and also in ambient. The metallic seals have an air leak rate of 1.1 x 10-3 cm3atm/m2/day, and mechanical shear strength higher than 8.9 MPa. This leak rate meets the requirement of organic solar cells and organic light emitting diodes [1].

We first present a theory of the smallest diameter and then use the theory to guide the experimental realization of Cu nanorods of ~20 nm in diameter and Au nanorods of ~10 nm in diameter, the smallest well-separated metallic nanorods ever reported using PVD.

A controversy exists among literature reports of constraints on elastic constants. In particular, it has been reported that embedded atom method (EAM) potentials generally impose three constraints on elastic constants of crystals that are inconsistent with experiments. However, it can be shown that some EAM potentials do not impose such constraints at all. This paper first resolves this controversy by identifying the necessary condition when the constraints exist and demonstrating the condition is physically necessary. Furthermore, this paper reports that these three constraints are eliminated under all conditions, by using response EAM (R-EAM) potentials.

The embedded atom method (EAM) potentials are probably the most widely used interatomic potentials for metals and alloys. However, the EAM potentials impose three constraints on elastic constants that are inconsistent with experiments. At a more subtle (but more important) level, the EAM potentials often incorrectly describe the outward/inward relaxation of surface layers, and therefore will not reliably describe nanostructures. This Letter reports a response EAM (R-EAM) that addresses both issues. Conceptually, the electron distribution from each atom does not respond to the atoms environment within the EAM. In reality, the electron distribution from each atom depends on the atoms environment, and this dependence is explicitly incorporated in the R-EAM. Analytical derivation shows that the R-EAM potentials do not impose these three constraints on elastic constants that EAM potentials do. Further, taking hexagonal close packed (HCP) metals Ti, Mg, and Zn as the prototypes, the authors show that the R-EAM potentials correctly describe surfaces, in terms of interlayer spacing and surface reconstruction, in agreement with quantum mechanics calculations, while EAM potentials are not in agreement. In comparison to EAM potentials, the R-EAM potentials require only approximately twice the computational power.

The critical separation of clusters, corresponding to the maximum density of clusters, affects growth characteristics during physical vapor deposition (PVD). In particular, this separation can affect surface smoothness in growing single-crystalline films, grain size distribution in growing polycrystalline films, and diameter in growing nanorods. This Letter reports a theoretical expression of the critical separation as a function of deposition conditions and accompanying verifications using lattice kinetic Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of PVD on Cu{111}. In contrast to existing theories, the theoretical expression in this Letter is (1) closed-form, (2) in better agreement with the MC simulations than the lattice approximation and (3) in better agreement with the MC simulations than the mean field approximation when the critical separation is large- larger than 25 nm for PVD on Cu{111}.

This Letter reports an anomaly of film porosity dependence on deposition rate during physical vapor deposition - the porosity increases as deposition rate decreases. Using glancing angle deposition of Cu on SiO2 substrate, the authors show that the Cu film consists of well separated nanorods when the deposition rate is 1 nm/second, and that the Cu films consists of a more uniform (or lower porosity) film when the deposition rate is 6 nm/second; all other deposition conditions remain the same. This anomaly is the result of interplay among substrate non-wetting, density of Cu nuclei on the substrate, and the minimum diameter of nanorods.

This Communication reports a geometrical factor that is necessary in the diffusion boundary condition across surface steps. Specifically, this factor relates adatom concentration to its spatial gradient at a surface step, and it describes the fraction of jump attempts that cross the step. In this Communication, the authors show that the factor is 1/\Pi using theoretical formulation and further verify the formulation using numerical simulations for triangular, square, and hexagonal surface lattices.

A double stranded DNA molecule when pulled with a force acting on one end of the molecule can become either partially or completely unzipped depending on the magnitude of the force F. For a random DNA sequence, the number M of unzipped base pairs goes as M~(F-Fc)^(-2) and diverges at the critical force Fc with an exponent \chi=2. We find that when excluded volume effect is taken into account for the unzipped part of the DNA, the exponent \chi=2 is not changed but the critical force Fc is changed. The force versus temperature phase diagram depends on only two parameters in the model, the persistence length and the denaturation temperature. Furthermore a scaling form of the phase diagram can be found. This scaling form is parameter independent and depends only on the spatial dimension. It applies to all DNA molecules and should provide a useful framework for comparison with experiments., Comment: 4 figures