´
M. Sroda, Z. Olejniczak / Journal of Molecular Structure 1001 (2011) 78–82
82
distant lanthanum neighbors F–La(3 + 1), respectively [20]. With
the increase of strontium concentration (sample 0.6Sr) these lines
become more pronounced and wider, but they almost completely
disappear in the 0.4Sr sample, having the highest strontium con-
centration. This is the evidence of decreasing number of fluorine
ions surrounded by lanthanum atoms. At the same time, new cen-
tral bands appear already in the spectrum of 0.6Sr sample at ꢀ65
and ꢀ90 ppm, the latter becoming dominant in the case of 0.4Sr
sample. The observed changes in the NMR spectrum with the in-
crease of strontium content result from the increasing coordination
of fluorine ions by Sr2+ ions. The line at ꢀ90 ppm can be assigned to
the local structure of F–Sr(4) type, and its formation is accompa-
nied by the decrease of the number of fluorine atoms that are close
to La3+ ions. Using similar arguments, we can assign the line at
ꢀ65 ppm to the local structure of F–Sr(4 ꢀ n)La(n) type, where
fluorine is coordinated by lanthanum and strontium ions simulta-
neously. The result show that the increase of strontium content
causes significant changes occurring in the fluoride sub-network
of the glass. Comparing to other bivalent modifiers, i.e. Mg, Ca,
Ba used in oxyfluoride glasses [10], Sr has the highest affinity to
fluorine ions. Therefore it will strongly compete with lanthanum
for fluorine.
are in good agreement with the changes observed in the NMR
spectra.
The above results suggest that the central band observed in the
range from ꢀ68 to ꢀ65 ppm in the 19F MAS-NMR spectrum origi-
nates from the local structure of F–[Sr(4 ꢀ n),La(n)] type, in which
fluorine anions coordinate with both lanthanum and strontium
cations.
4. Conclusions
The 19F MAS-NMR studies demonstrate the strong influence of
SrO on the position and coordination of fluorine atoms in the
glass framework. It causes significant changes in the first crystal-
lization step: LaF3 only, LaF3 and Sr0.69La0.31F2.31, and LaSr2F7 only
fluoride phases are formed for 0.8Sr, 0.6Sr, and 0.4Sr glasses,
respectively. Furthermore, the NMR results unambiguously ex-
clude the occurrence of fluorine–sodium bonds in the oxyfluoride
aluminosilicate glasses containing LaF3 and modified by both
Na2O and SrO. Instead, the fluorine atoms prefer the bonding with
lanthanum and strontium. The mixed strontium–lanthanum fluo-
rides are formed in the cerammization process, when the SrO
concentration increases. This is manifested by the appearance of
the new central band in the 19F MAS-NMR spectrum at about
ꢀ65 ppm. The above results show that the addition of strontium
affects strongly the LaF3 crystallization kinetics and the structure
of the oxyfluoride glass. This way the process of forming the
nanocrystalline low-phonon-energy phase can be controlled to a
larger extent.
The 19F MAS-NMR spectra of glasses that were heat-treated at
700 °C for 2 h are shown in Fig. 2b. The positions of central bands
are very similar to that found in the original glasses, but the peaks
amplitudes are bigger while their FWHM widths much smaller.
This is the effect of cerammization process, which causes progres-
sive ordering of the structure around the fluorine ions. In the case
of the 0.4Sr sample, the process already began while the melt was
undercooled, which can be seen in Fig. 2a. For the samples contain-
ing smaller amount of Sr (0.6Sr and 0.8Sr), the thermal treatment
caused a significant intensity increase of +25 and ꢀ23 ppm lines,
corresponding to crystalline LaF3 phase. For larger Sr content
(0.4Sr), the pure crystalline LaF3 phase is not observed. Instead,
the mixed structures of La–F–Sr type and the Sr–F bonds are
formed, as manifested by the lines at ꢀ65 and ꢀ90 ppm, respec-
tively. Such effect was not seen in the glass samples containing
other modifiers, like MgO and CaO [10]. The origin of a weak cen-
tral band at ꢀ187 ppm that is present in the NMR spectra of all
heat-treated samples is not known at the moment.
Acknowledgements
The work was supported by AGH – University of Science and
Technology, Faculty of Material Engineering and Ceramics, Grant
No. 11.11.160.365/2011.
References
[1] P.A. Tick, N.F. Borrelli, I.M. Reaney, Opt. Mater. 15 (1) (2000) 81–91.
[2] P.A. Tick, N.F. Borrelli, L.K. Cornelius, M.A. Newhouse, J. Appl. Phys. 78 (11)
(1995) 6367–6374.
[3] M. Dejneka, in: Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress on Glass, C9-1,
1998.
The 19F MAS-NMR spectra of the 0.8Sr sample heat-treated for
2 h at various temperatures are presented in Fig. 3. They clearly
show a further intensity increase of the lines corresponding to
the LaF3 phase (+25 and ꢀ23 ppm) with the increasing cerammiza-
tion temperature.
´
[4] M. Rozanski, M. Sroda, Cz. Koepke, in: Proceedings of SPIE, The International
Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 7120, 2008, pp. 89–333.
[5] M.B. Volf, Chemical Approach to Glass, Glass Science and Technology, vol. 7,
Elsevier, 1984.
[6] R.G. Hill, A. Stamboulis, R.V. Law, A. Clifford, M.R. Towler, C. Crowley, J. Non-
Cryst. Solids 336 (2004) 223–229.
In order to confirm the NMR results, X-ray diffraction measure-
ments were carried out on heat-treated glass samples. In the sam-
ple containing the smallest amount of SrO (0.8Sr) heat-treated at
900 °C, only the crystalline LaF3 phase (reference code (RC): 01-
82-0691) was detected. When the cerammization temperature
was increased to 990 °C, an additional albite phase (NaAlSi3O8,
RC: 01-071-1156) appeared (Fig. 4). The LaF3 crystallite sizes in
this sample for increasing cerammization temperature are pre-
sented in the Table 2, as determined by the Scherrer method [21].
The XRD analysis carried out on the 0.6Sr sample heat-treated
at the same temperature range detected two crystalline phases:
LaF3 and Sr0.69La0.31F2.31 (RC: 01-078-1144) (Fig. 5). In the sample
with the highest strontium content (0.4Sr) only the crystalline
LaSr2F7 phase (RC: 00-053-0774) was found (Fig. 6). These results
´
[7] M. Sroda, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 97 (2009) 281–287.
´
[8] M. Sroda, Cz. Paluszkiewicz, Vib. Spectrosc. 48 (2008) 246–250.
[9] R.E. Youngman, M.J. Dejneka, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 85 (2002) 1077–1082.
´
[10] M. Sroda, Z. Olejniczak, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 357 (2011) 1696–1700.
[11] R.G. Hill, R.V. Law, M.D. O’Donnell, J. Hawes, N.L. Bubb, D.J. Wood, C.A. Miller,
M. Mirsaneh, I. Reaney, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 29 (2009) 2185–2191.
[12] T.J. Kiczenski, J.F. Stebins, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 306 (2002) 160–168.
´
[13] M. Sroda, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 97 (2009) 239–243.
[14] N. Hemono, G. Pierre, F. Munoz, A. de Pablos-Martin, M.J. Pascual, A. Duran, J.
Eur. Ceram. Soc. 29 (2009) 2915–2920.
[15] L. Delevoye, L. Montagne, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 357 (2011) 1463–1468.
[16] Q. Zeng, J.F. Stebbins, Am. Mineral. 85 (2000) 863–867.
[17] E. Görlich, Nature 192 (1961) 133–135.
[18] F. Wang, C.P. Grey, Chem. Mater. 9 (1997) 1068–1070.
[19] J.M. Miller, Prog. Nucl. Mag. Reson. 28 (1996) 255–281.
[20] J.F. Stebbins, Q. Zeng, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 262 (2000) 1–5.
[21] J.I. Langford, A.J.C. Wilson, J. Appl. Cryst. 11 (1978) 102–113.