The unexpected structures of “core–shell” and “alloy” LnF3 nanoparticles as examined by variable energy X-ray photo-electron spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles were synthesized in aqueous media using procedures intended for a core-shell structure of Ln((1))F(3)-Ln((2))F(3), its reverse architecture, and an alloy structure. Their structures were examined by variable photon energy photo-electron spectroscopy using synchrotron radiation, along with X-ray powder diffractometry, transmission electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and luminescence spectroscopy. The results show that the nanoparticles intended for a core-shell structure do not have a core-shell structure, and that nanoparticles intended for an alloy structure do not always have an alloy structure. A possible explanation for this is cation exchange, a phenomenon that occurs when LnF(3) nanoparticles are exposed to another Ln(3+) ion in aqueous media, resulting in Ln(3+) ions in nanoparticles being quickly replaced by Ln(3+) ions in solution. This cation exchange effectively competes with the precipitation of LnF(3), which leads to a concentration gradient in the case of the combination of LaF(3) and GdF(3), and to nearly an alloy structure (isotropic mixture of all the ions) in the case of the combination of LaF(3) and NdF(3), regardless of the procedure used. Finally, the intended "core-shell" nanoparticles were doped with Eu(3+) to show that a non-core-shell structure can also give rise to the improvement of optical properties as compared with the corresponding core nanoparticles. These results suggest that conclusions in the literature that a core-shell structure was obtained as inferred by TEM or enhanced luminescence may not be correct.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".