Implications of size dispersion on X-ray scattering of crystalline nanoparticles: CeO<sub>2</sub> as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlling the shape and size dispersivity and crystallinity of nanoparticles (NPs) has been a challenge in identifying these parameters' role in the physical and chemical properties of NPs. The need for reliable quantitative tools for analyzing the dispersivity and crystallinity of NPs is a considerable problem in optimizing scalable synthesis routes capable of controlling NP properties. The most common tools are electron microscopy (EM) and X-ray scattering techniques. However, each technique has different susceptibility to these parameters, implying that more than one technique is necessary to characterize NP systems with maximum reliability. Wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) is mandatory to access information on crystallinity. In contrast, EM or small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is required to access information on whole NP sizes. EM provides average values on relatively small ensembles in contrast to the bulk values accessed by X-ray techniques. Besides the fact that the SAXS and WAXS techniques have different susceptibilities to size distributions, SAXS is easily affected by NP–NP interaction distances. Because of all the variables involved, there have yet to be proposed methodologies for cross-analyzing data from two techniques that can provide reliable quantitative results of dispersivity and crystallinity. In this work, a SAXS/WAXS-based methodology is proposed for simultaneously quantifying size distribution and degree of crystallinity of NPs. The most reliable easy-to-access size result for each technique is demonstrated by computer simulation. Strategies on how to compare these results and how to identify NP–NP interaction effects underneath the SAXS intensity curve are presented. Experimental results are shown for cubic-like CeO 2 NPs. WAXS size results from two analytical procedures are compared, line-profile fitting of individual diffraction peaks in opposition to whole pattern fitting. The impact of shape dispersivity is also evaluated. Extension of the proposed methodology for cross-analyzing EM and WAXS data is possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".