054105-3
Li, Su, and Li
Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 054105 ͑2007͒
intensity can be always decreased with particle size reduc-
tion, since CaWO4 nanocrystal surfaces are also chemically
bonded with citric species ͑Fig. 2͒ which may reduce dan-
gling bond density on surfaces and hence the number of trap
sites for nonradiative recombination. For the latter case, the
quantum efficiency of photoluminescence could be signifi-
cantly enhanced,22 somewhat like what has been observed
ganic materials.23 The balance of all these factors might be
the primary cause for the enhanced photoluminescence emis-
sion of CaWO4 nanocrystals even at a small size of 3.4 nm.
This work was financially supported by NSFC under the
contract ͑No. 20671092͒, a grant from Hundreds Youth Tal-
ents Program and a Directional Program of CAS ͑Li G͒, and
in part by a Science and Technology Program from Fujian
Province ͑Nos. Z0513026 and 2005HZ01-1͒.
FIG. 4. PL spectra of CaWO4 nanocrystals with diameters of ͑a͒ 31.7 nm,
͑b͒ 15.1 nm, ͑c͒ 9.3 nm, and ͑d͒ 3.4 nm.
1V. Pankratov, L. Grigorjeva, D. Millers, S. Chernov, and A. S. Voloshi-
novskii, J. Lumin. 94, 427 ͑2001͒.
depending on the crystal planes. Consequently, size reduc-
tion may have impacts on the symmetry of structural units
and the resulting properties. In bulk, WO4 units are directly
aligned along a axis, whereas along c axis there is a Ca
cation located between two WO4 tetrahedra. As a result, the
variability of axis length along c and a directions is reason-
able to occur, owing to the different arrangements of hard
WO4 tetrahedra. Consistent with the oriented growth of
CaWO4 nanocrystals along the c-axis direction ͑Fig. 1͒, the
hydrated ͕001͖ plane exhibits the lowest surface energy of
0.36 J m−2 among all exposed planes, while the surface en-
ergy for hydrated ͕100͖ and ͕010͖ planes is comparatively
large, being around 1.06 J m−2.17 Therefore, a decreased c/a
axis ratio is expected since the dipole-dipole interactions on
the polar end surfaces ͑001͒ might have very limited influ-
ence on the lattice dimension, which explains the enhanced
structural symmetry in CaWO4 nanocrystals.
Photoluminescence is sensitive to the lattice variations
and surface modifications. All CaWO4 nanocrystals gave a
dominant emission centered at 421 nm ͑Fig. 4͒, which is
attributed to the intrinsic electronic transfer of WO4 ͑Ref.
18͒ or to the self-trapped centers with exciton energies being
located within the band gap.19 PL emission for the present
nanocrystals persisted smaller than 10 nm, while those for
other nanocrystals are hard to see even at particle sizes of
about 20 nm.19 To understand the nature of this apparent
inconsistency, an analysis of microstructural factors of
CaWO4 nanostructures is required. As stated above, the sym-
metry of structural units of CaWO4 nanocrystals increased
with particle size reduction, which would decrease the lumi-
nescence intensity.20 Surface hydration may weaken to cer-
tain extent the luminescence intensity because OH− groups
from the absorbed water could act as the luminescent
quenchers.21 These results do not mean that the luminescence
2I. H. Park, B. S. Kim, K. Y. Kim, and L. H. Kim, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part
1 40, 4956 ͑2001͒.
3P. Mogilevsky, T. A. Parthasarathy, and M. D. Petry, Acta Mater. 52, 5529
͑2004͒.
4D. S. Kim, M. Ostromecki, and I. E. Wachs, J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 106,
93 ͑1996͒.
5G. Li, J. Boerio-Goates, B. F. Woodfield, and L. Li, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85,
2059 ͑2004͒.
6X. D. Zhou and W. Huebner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3512 ͑2001͒.
7D. Schroeer and R. C. Nininger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 632 ͑1967͒.
8D. Chen, G. Z. Shen, K. B. Tang, H. G. Zheng, and Y. T. Qian, Mater. Res.
Bull. 38, 1783 ͑2003͒.
9J. H. Ryu, J. W. Yoon, C. S. Lim, W. C. Oh, and K. B. Shim, Ceram. Int.
31, 883 ͑2005͒.
10A. Senyshyn, H. Kraus, V. B. Mikhailik, and V. Yakovyna, Phys. Rev. B
70, 214306 ͑2004͒.
11M. I. Kay, B. C. Frazer, and I. J. Almodovar, J. Chem. Phys. 40, 504
͑1964͒.
12JCPDS card No. 41-1431.
13D. Errandonea, F. J. Manjón, M. Somayazulu, and D. Häusermann, J.
Solid State Chem. 177, 1087 ͑2004͒.
14S. N. Achary, S. J. Patwe, M. D. Mathews, and A. K. Tyagi, J. Phys.
Chem. Solids 67, 774 ͑2006͒.
15A. Taneda and Y. Kawazoe, J. Magn. Soc. Jpn. 23, 679 ͑1999͒; E. Anno
and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. B 73, 155430 ͑2006͒; W. H. Qi and M. P.
Wang, J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 51 ͑2005͒.
16H. A. Al-Abadleh and V. H. Grassian, Surf. Sci. Rep. 52, 63 ͑2003͒.
17T. G. Cooper and N. H. de Leeuw, Surf. Sci. 531, 159 ͑2003͒.
18A. Jayaraman, B. Batlogg, and L. G. VanUitert, Phys. Rev. B 31, 5423
͑1985͒.
19S. J. Chen, J. Li, X. T. Chen, J. M. Hong, Z. L. Xue, and X. Z. You, J.
Cryst. Growth 253, 361 ͑2003͒.
20J. W. Stouwdam, M. Raudsepp, C. J. M. Frank, and van Veggel, Langmuir
21, 7003 ͑2005͒.
21Y. Haas and G. Stein, Chem. Phys. Lett. 15, 12 ͑1972͒; W. Di, X. Wang,
B. Chen, S. Lu, and X. Zhao, J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 13154 ͑2005͒.
22M. Konishi, T. Isobe, and M. Senna, J. Lumin. 93, 1 ͑2001͒.
23M. Jones, J. Nedeljkovic, R. J. Ellingson, A. J. Nozik, and G. Rumbles, J.
Phys. Chem. B 107, 11346 ͑2003͒.