Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:44:12.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection and Imaging of Supported Catalyst Particles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Michael M. J. Treacy
Michael M. J. Treacy*
Affiliation:
Exxon Research and Engineering Company Route 22 East, Clinton Township, Annandale, New Jersey 08801
Get access

Abstract

In this short review we contrast and compare the relative merits of three imaging techniques in the CTEM and STEM, for detecting subnanometer size catalyst clusters. It is shown that incoherent dark field signals, such as those obtained by hollow-cone illumination in the CTEM, and the annular detector in the STEM, are significantly more sensitive to subnanometer size clusters than the bright field signal. Sensitivity to clusters of high atomic number increases as the illumination (or detector) semi-angle increases, although at the expense of decreased signal-to-noise. The STEM annular detector signal offers advantages over the CTEM hollow-cone signal in this respect since it has a higher electron collection efficiency. A further advantage of the STEM is that image contrasts may be enhanced by electronically combining the annular detector signal with the axial energy loss signal. This ratio method, or Z contrast technique, has been used with success to detect single Pt atoms on thin low atomic number supports.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 62: Symposium Q – Materials Problem Solving with the Transmission Electron Microscope , 1985 , 367
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See for example almost any issue of Journal of Catalysis.Google Scholar
2. Marks, L. D. and Smith, D. J., Nature. 303, 316 (1983).Google Scholar
3. Dexpert, H., Freund, E., Lynch, J. P., and Pennycook, S. J., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 61, 209 (1982).Google Scholar
4. Brown, L. M., J. Phys. F: Metal Phys. 11, 1, (1981).Google Scholar
5. See for example the other articles in this volume.Google Scholar
6. Whetten, R. L., Cox, D. M., Trevor, D. J., and Kaldor, A., Phys. Rev. Letts. 54, 1494 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Flynn, P. C., Wanke, S. E., and Turner, P. S., J. Catal. 33, 233 (1974).Google Scholar
8. Hall, C. R. and Hirsch, P. B., Proc. Roy. Soc. A286, 158C(1965).Google Scholar
9. Hirsch, P. B., Howie, A., Nicholson, R. B., Pashley, D. W., and Whelan, M. J., “Electron Microscopy of Thin Crystals.” (New York: Robert E. Krieger), p 207, (1977).Google Scholar
10. Prestridge, E. B., Via, G. H., and Sinfelt, J. H., J. Catal. 50, 115 (1977).Google Scholar
11. Treacy, M. M. J. and Howie, A., J. Catal. 63, 265 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Joy, D. C., Maher, D. M., and Cullis, A. G., J. Microsc. 108, 185 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Yang, C. Y., Heinemann, K., Yacaman, M. J., and Poppa, H., Thin Solid Films. 58, 163 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Yacaman, M. J., Zenith, J., and Contreras, J. L., Appl. Surf. Sci, 6, 1 (1980).Google Scholar
15. Diaz, G., Garin, F., and Maire, G., J. Catal. 82, 13 (1983).Google Scholar
16. Yacaman, M. J. and Ocana, T. Z., Phys. Stat. Sol. (a) 42, 571 (1977).Google Scholar
17. Gibson, J. M., Howie, A., and Stobbs, W. M., Inst.-Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 36, p. 275 (1977).Google Scholar
18. Heinemann, K. and Poppa, H., Appl Phys. Lett. 16, 515 (1970).Google Scholar
19. Freeman, L. A., Howie, A., and Treacy, M. M. J., J. Micrsoc. 111, 165 (1977).Google Scholar
20. Krakow, W. and Howland, L. A., Ultramicroscopy. 2, 53 (1976).Google Scholar
21. Avery, N. R. and Sanders, J. V., J. Catal. 18, 129 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Cowley, J. M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 15, 58 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Crewe, A. V., Langmore, J. P., and Isaacson, M. S., in “Physical Aspects of Electron Micrsocopy and Microbeam Analysis,” (Siegel, B. M. and Beaman, D. R., eds.) p. 47, Wiley, New York (1975).Google Scholar
24. Treacy, M. M. J., Howie, A., and Wilson, C. J., Phil. Mag. A 38, 569 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Isaacson, M. S., Kopf, D., Ohtsuki, M., and Utlaut, M., Ultramicroscopy. 4, 101, (1979).Google Scholar
26. Treacy, M. M. J., J. Microsc. Spectrosc. Electron. 7, 511, (1982).Google Scholar
27. Treacy, M. M. J., ACS Symposium Series No. 248,” Catalytic Materials: Relationship Between Structure and Reactivity,” (Whyte, T. E., Betta, R. A. Dalla, Derouane, E. G. and Baker, R. T. K.) 367 (1984).Google Scholar
28. Treacy, M. M. J., Howie, A., and Pennycook, S. J., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 52, 261 (1980).Google Scholar