2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143831
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermally induced atomic and electronic structure evolution in nanostructured carbon film by in situ TEM/EELS analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the i-irradiated carbon films with the ion excitation and etching effect [28], the surfaces were flat with small asperities, and values were all around 0.1 nm with different irradiation energies. While for the e-irradiated carbon films, since the temperature during film deposition was much higher [48], the roughness changed a lot with different irradiation energies, the maximum roughness of 7.1 nm appeared with substrate bias of +20 V, and then the roughness decreased to 2.2 nm with the increasing of electron irradiation energy increased to +80 V. The elastic modulus and hardness of the sp 2 nanocrystallited carbon films also showed great difference for the electron and ion irradiated films due to the differences of nanostructure (shown in Fig. 7(b)).…”
Section: In-situ Tem Nanofriction Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For the i-irradiated carbon films with the ion excitation and etching effect [28], the surfaces were flat with small asperities, and values were all around 0.1 nm with different irradiation energies. While for the e-irradiated carbon films, since the temperature during film deposition was much higher [48], the roughness changed a lot with different irradiation energies, the maximum roughness of 7.1 nm appeared with substrate bias of +20 V, and then the roughness decreased to 2.2 nm with the increasing of electron irradiation energy increased to +80 V. The elastic modulus and hardness of the sp 2 nanocrystallited carbon films also showed great difference for the electron and ion irradiated films due to the differences of nanostructure (shown in Fig. 7(b)).…”
Section: In-situ Tem Nanofriction Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…bias (Figure 3a-d), [4c,d,18] the cryogenic holder (Figure 3e), [19] and the in situ heating (Figure 3f). [20] Specifically, the in situ bias rigs include the electrochemical liquid open cell (Figure 3a), [4c] the electrochemical solid-state open cell (Figure 3b,d), [18] and the electrochemical liquid close cell (Figure 3c). [4d] Attributed to them, the TEM imaging and corresponding EELS spectra of battery materials are now achievable not only under different thermodynamics conditions but also in a variety of dynamic environments (e.g., electrochemical solid/liquid or solid/solid systems, heating, cryogenic, etc.…”
Section: Emerging Advanced Eels Configurations For Battery Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar MEMS-type chip can likewise be employed to conduct the in situ heating with a matching holder (Figure 3f). [20,24] Since 2017, the cryo-TEM has been developed to study the battery materials, with Cui and co-workers being the first to use it. [19] The cryo-TEM holder's low temperature of <100 K allows the observation of the instable species under the electron beam, such as the Li dendrites, solid electrolyte interphase, etc.…”
Section: Emerging Advanced Eels Configurations For Battery Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the film deposition, the ion irradiation energy was fixed to 20 eV, which indicates the films were grown with the low energy ion excitation effect [28]. On the other hand, to prevent the heating effect that compromises sp 2 nanocrystallite formation, the temperature was monitored, and it was much lower than the onset temperature of 200 °C for the sp 3 -to-sp 2 conversion process [33]. Therefore, the structural difference was due to the ion irradiation density.…”
Section: Friction Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%