Pressure driven polymorphic transitions in nanocrystalline Lu2O3, Tm2O3 and Eu2O3

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 17365 (2023 ) Cite this article europium

The crystallite size of the materials considerably influences the material properties, including their compressibility and resistance to external forces and the stability of the crystalline structure; a corresponding study for which, so far, has been limited for the important class of nanocrystalline Rare Earth Sesquioxides (REOs). In the present study, we report the crystallographic structural transitions in nanocrystalline Rare Earth Oxides (REOs) under the influence of pressure, investigated via high-energy X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) measurements. The study has been carried out on three of the REOs, namely Lutetium oxide (Lu2O3), Thulium oxide (Tm2O3) and Europium oxide (Eu2O3) up to the pressures of 33, 22 and 11 GPa, respectively. The diffraction data of Lu2O3 and Tm2O3 suggests the occurrence of irreversible structural transitions from cubic to monoclinic phase, while Eu2O3 showed a transition from the cubic to hexagonal phase. The transitions were found to be accompanied by a collapse in the volume and the resulting Pressure–Volume (P–V) graphs are fitted with the 3rd order Birch-Murnaghan (BM) equation of state (EOS) to estimate the bulk moduli and their pressure derivatives. Our study establishes a qualitative relationship between the crystallite size and various material properties such as the lattice parameters, transition pressure, bulk modulus etc., and strengthens the knowledge regarding the behaviour of this technologically important class of materials.

Rare earth sesquioxides (REOs) have been an interesting area of study in past years due to their versatile technological and scientific significance. They have various applications in every field of science and find applications as coating materials to stabilize high voltage lithium layered oxide cathodes1, as well as in enviornmental barrier coatings2. They are also used as a doping materials in metal oxides to increase their photoctatlytic activity3, blended with various polymers to increase their gamma shielding capacity4. These materials are of strategic importance and find applications in solid oxide fuel cells5, nuclear security applications6, neutron absorbers7, laser crystals8,9, nuclear waste host materials10, chemical machine polishing11,12, light emitting devices13, rare earth magnets, control rods for fast breeder reactors14, radiation sheilding10,15,16, and catalysis17 etc. REO nanoparticles are also used for biomedical and dental applications18,19,20. Due to these numerous applications in all fields of science, it becomes necessary to study the behavior of these materials under varying conditions.

Three polymorphic forms viz. cubic, monoclinic and hexagonal are usually exhibited by REOs. They exhibit these structures depending on their cationic radii. As we move from La to Lu in the periodic table, the cationic radii decrease and their atomic masses increase. Heavier sesquioxides exhibit cubic structure (C-type) having a space group Ia-3 (206) and Z = 16 while the lighter ones are found to be in a hexagonal phase (A-type) with space group P-3m1 and Z = 1. The medium cations i.e., Sm to Gd can exist in the monoclinic phase (B-type) having a space group C2/m and Z = 6. Furthermore, it is known that under the application of external forces, the materials undergo phase transitions as they try to adjust their structure to minimize the lattice energy and achieve equilibrium. The structural transition from cubic to monoclinic to hexagonal is accompanied by volume collapse. The hexagonal phase is known to have the least volume among all three phases. However, the volume change in the case of the transition from the cubic to monoclinic phase has a high value, and contrary to this, the transition from the monoclinic to hexagonal phase is accompanied by small changes in the volume21.

The structural transition studies in the REOs are an interesting area of research and a number of researchers have been working on the same. Jiang et al. studied the high-pressure behavior of the Eu2O3 using Angle Dispersive X-Ray Diffraction (ADXRD) and observed a cubic to hexagonal transition with a volume collapse of 9.6 %22. Yu et al. reported a phase transition from cubic to hexagonal in nano-Eu2O3 which starts at 9.3 GPa23. Our group also reported a phase transition from cubic to monoclinic in Eu2O3 having some content of the Eu1-xO24. Recently, we have also reported a cubic to hexagonal transition in pure Eu2O3 which initiated at 4.79 GPa and completed at 15 GPa25. The pure Eu2O3 shows a direct transition from the cubic to the hexagonal phase. Moreover, Lu2O3 and Tm2O3 have been reported to show transition from cubic to monoclinic phase. Sahu et al. reported a transition from the cubic to monoclinic phase in Tm2O3 at 7 GPa using the XRD studies26. A phase transition from cubic to monoclinic phase at 12 GPa has been reported by Irshad et al. using Raman as well as XRD measurements in Tm2O327. A cubic to monoclinic phase transition in Lu2O3, which started at a pressure of 12.7 GPa and completed at 18.2 GPa has been reported by Jiang et al.28. Lin et al. observed that a cubic to monoclinic transition started at a pressure of 17 GPa in Lu2O329. Our group has also studied the pressure behavior of Lu2O3 using Raman spectroscopy and found that the cubic phase is stable up to the pressure of 15.6 GPa30. However, there are discrepancies in the value of the transition pressures reported so far.

Further, nanocrystalline materials, owing to their nanometric size, have fascinating properties different than the bulk materials due to the large surface area and large surface to volume ratio. These aspects of the nanomaterials also affect the crystallographic transition pressures of the materials. In general, the transition pressure of the REO nanomaterials is found to be higher than their bulk counterpart23,31. Such a study has also been reported for CeO232. From the mechanical point of view, this could be attributed to the Hall–Petch effect due to which, the grain boundaries in the material affect its yield strength and with the decreasing grain size the yield and flow stress required for continuous plastic deformations increase. However, targeted investigations of pressure driven transitions in nanocrystalline REOs still have much scope.

In this study, we present the pressure-driven structural changes investigated via variation in the diffraction peaks for three of the nanocrystalline REOs namely Eu2O3, Tm2O3 and Lu2O3 using the high-pressure XRD (HPXRD) study up to the pressures of 11 GPa, 22 GPa, and 33 GPa respectively. We discuss the influence of the crystallite size on various material properties such as bulk modulus, phase transitions pressure, etc., and attempt to establish a qualitative relation between them, which has been missing so far. Along with this, we also report the dependency of the lattice parameters on pressure.

The REOs of purity 99.99% were used as the starting materials. The powder sample of the Lu2O3 was procured from Johnson Matthey, UK and powder samples of Tm2O3 and Eu2O3 were procured from Alfa Aesar respectively.

The HPXRD measurements were carried out on beamline 11 of Indus 2 synchrotron radiation facility at RRCAT, Indore, India. To carry out the measurements, Lu2O3 and Tm2O3 were loaded in Fe-gaskets with a hole size of about 80 µm along with a few ruby chips which were used as pressure calibrators. However, for Eu2O3, the Fe-gasket was used with the gold as a pressure calibrator. In all the HPXRD studies, a mixture of methanol and ethanol in a ratio of 4:1 was used as the pressure-transmitting medium. The hydrostatic limit for this pressure transmitting medium is 10.5 GPa33. The wavelength of the incident radiation was tuned at 0.696112 Å for both Lu2O3 and Tm2O3, and tuned at 0.634857 Å for the Eu2O3. The distance and orientation of the detector were calibrated using CeO2 powder as well as LaB6.

All the samples, in their ambient phase, were found to exhibit the cubic crystalline phase with space group Ia-3(206). The various characterization studies including XRD, Raman spectroscopy, SEM and EDX measurements, carried out on these samples have been reported elsewhere in references25,30,34. The obtained diffraction patterns of the sesquioxides were compared with the JCPDS data cards, #430121 for Lu2O3, # 431034 for Tm2O3 and #340392 for Eu2O3. The crystallite size of all three materials, estimated using Williamson-Hall plot, was found to be in the range of 30–66 nm which confirmed the nanocrystalline nature of all the studied materials as mentioned in Table 1. The phase purity of the samples was also further confirmed by Rietveld analysis of the ambient XRD spectra of the REOs obtained using the synchrotron radiation source as shown in Fig. S1. The various lattice parameters and ambient unit cell volumes obtained from the refinement are also shown in Table 1.

For Lu2O3, the pressure-dependent measurement was carried out up to a pressure of 33 GPa. Figure 1 shows the pressure-dependent XRD results. The XRD pattern at any given pressure contains the peak of the sample in question, as well as the peaks corresponding to the gasket material (Fe). As we increase the pressure, the peaks of the cubic phase start shifting towards the higher values of 2θ while simultaneously, peaks also start to broaden. Up to a pressure of 17.1 GPa, peaks only shift towards the higher 2θ side. However, at around 17.1 GPa new peaks started to develop at about 2θ = 13.45 º, which is marked with * in Fig. 1. In addition, a weak shoulder to the cubic phase peak at 2θ = 22.96 º also begins to develop. With further increasing pressure, the intensity of these peaks increases significantly at the expense of the intensity of the cubic phase peaks.

XRD patterns of Lu2O3 with increasing pressures. Each diffraction data is marked with the corresponding pressure and the peaks corresponding to the gasket material have been marked with #.

At around 30 GPa, the peaks corresponding to the cubic phase disappear entirely. The newly developed peaks agree very well with the monoclinic phase of the material which is confirmed by Rietveld refinement of the high-pressure data. Hence, we can say that a pressure-driven structural transition from the cubic to the monoclinic phase has been observed. This phase transition starts at 17.1 GPa of pressure and completes at 30 GPa. Beyond 30 GPa, the monoclinic phase of the material is found to be stable till the highest studied pressure i.e., 32.6 GPa.

The pressure-driven changes can be seen in Tm2O3 up to the highest studied pressure of around 22 GPa in Fig. 2. Along with the peaks of the cubic phase of the sample, the peaks corresponding to the Fe have also been observed in the diffraction pattern. The cubic phase of the material is found to be stable till the pressure of 12.8 GPa. At a pressure of 14.0 GPa, new peaks started appearing in the diffraction pattern at 2θ values of 13.04° and 22.57°. Similar to the observation in Lu2O3, with increasing pressures, the intensity of these peaks is found to be increasing while the intensity of the cubic phase peaks decreases. These new peaks also agree very well with the peaks of the monoclinic phase as concluded by Rietveld refinement of the data. However, till the highest studied pressure the transition was not completed since the peak corresponding to the Miller indices (222) belonging to the cubic phase, can still be observed in the diffraction pattern marked by $ in Fig. 2.

Evolution of the diffraction pattern of Tm2O3 with increasing applied pressure. Peaks of the gasket material, i.e., Fe are marked with #.

The structural changes in Eu2O3 with increasing applied pressure are shown in Fig. 3. With increasing pressure, the peaks were again observed to be shifted towards the higher values of 2θ, and simultaneously, the broadening of the peaks has been observed. Till the pressure of 4.0 GPa, we have only observed the broadening and shifting of the peaks. Nevertheless, at a pressure of 7.4 GPa, a new peak has been observed at 2θ = 12.7°, which is found to belong to the hexagonal phase of the sample, as confirmed by Rietveld refinement. With further increasing pressure, the intensity of this peak increases along with the emergence of additional new peaks. On the other hand, peaks corresponding to the cubic phase of the sample are losing their intensity, confirming the formation of a new phase at the cost of the current phase. However, till the highest studied pressure, the peaks corresponding to the cubic as well as hexagonal phases have been observed. Hence it is clear that up to a pressure of 11 GPa, the transition has not been completed.

Pressure-driven changes in the diffraction pattern of Eu2O3. The peaks corresponding to Au (Pressure calibrator) and Fe (gasket material) have been marked with * and # respectively.

Rietveld refinement of (a) Lu2O3 and (b) Tm2O3 at a few applied pressures. The green and orange lines represent the Bragg’s positions corresponding to cubic and monoclinic phases respectively. (c) Rietveld refined diffraction data for Eu2O3 at various applied pressures. Green and pink ticks represent the Bragg’s positions corresponding to cubic and hexagonal phases of the Eu2O3 respectively. The dark yellow line represents the Bragg’s position of the gold and violet line represents the Bragg’s position of the Fe.

The applied pressure affects the intermolecular bonding in the materials and this compression results in the decrease in the volume. As expected, we have also observed this decrease in the volume for all the samples with applied pressure as shown in Fig. 5. The squares and circles show the experimentally obtained pressure-volume data. All the three samples show significant reduction in volume near the transition pressures.

P-V plots for Lu2O3, Tm2O3 and Eu2O3. The symbols represent the experimental data and solid line represents the fit using the BM EOS. Error in the volume is smaller than the symbol size.

This pressure volume data was fitted using the BM EOS. However, prior to EOS fitting, the data was deduced from the F-f plot (Fig. S2). F represents the normalized stress and f is Eulerian strain and the estimations were carried out using the equations

The F-f plot comes out to be a straight line (Fig. S2), and hence 3rd order BM EOS has been used for the fitting of the obtained P-V data, which is given by

In the above equation ${V}_{0}$ and V represent the unit cell volume of the material at ambient pressure and at pressure P respectively, ${B}_{0}$ is the bulk modulus of the elasticity and ${B}_{0}{\prime}$ is its pressure derivative.

The solid lines in Fig. 5 show the fit obtained for the experimental variation of the volume with pressure. In case of Lu2O3 and Tm2O3, the volume data is shown for the ambient cubic and the high-pressure monoclinic phase, while in case of Eu2O3 volume data is shown for the ambient cubic and the high-pressure hexagonal phase. From fitted data obtained using Eq. (3), the values of the bulk modulus and its pressure derivatives are estimated, which are given in Table 2 and mentioned in the graphs.

The table also compares the presently obtained values and the reported literature values and show a good agreement with the work of Irshad et al.27,35 for Tm2O3 and Eu2O3.

The predominance of surface atoms at the nanoscale, with their varied contributions to the cohesive energy through their related surface energies, can completely alter a phase energy landscape with a variety of effects. Due to this energy contribution, the phase diagram of the nanomaterial can change in comparison to its bulk counterpart in terms of the change in the transition pressures, involves new crystallographic structures or have amorphous states. In the present study, we have also observed a shift in the transition pressures in case of Lu2O3 and Tm2O3 towards higher value of pressure as compared to the reported studies27,28,29. However, in the case of Eu2O3, the transition pressure of 7.4 GPa, observed presently, is lower than the transition pressure reported by Jiang et al.22. Eu2O3 showed a transition to hexagonal phase while the other two samples progressed to monoclinic phase at high pressures.

The normal trend of the structural phase transitions in the REOs under the application of pressure is cubic to monoclinic and monoclinic to hexagonal36,37,38,39. However, exceptions have been observed in a number of oxides which show a direct transition from cubic to hexagonal transition40,41,42,43,44,45,46. This can be due to the lower energy of the hexagonal phase rather than the monoclinic phase47. In the present study, we have observed the normal trend of transition in the case of Lu2O3 and Tm2O3, but contrary to these results, Eu2O3 shows a transition from cubic to hexagonal phase, which is due to lower energy of hexagonal phase.

In Lu2O3, the structural transition is initiated around the 17.1 GPa of pressure and completed at 30.0 GPa with the disappearance of all the peaks corresponding to the cubic phase. These results are found to be consistent with the transition pressure of 17 GPa, reported by Lin et al. in the crystals of Lu2O329. The value of the transition pressure is also found to be consistent with the our previously reported high pressure Raman spectra of Lu2O3 in which the phase is found to be stable up to the pressure of 15 GPa30. However, the pressure at which the transition starts in bulk is 12.7 GPa as reported by Jiang et al., which is lower by a value of 5 GPa as compared to the nanocrystalline Lu2O328.

In case of Tm2O3, also, the transition pressure is found to be higher than the theoretically predicted value of 8 GPa. The transition pressure also has a slightly higher value than the pressure reported by Irshad et al.27 for having a crystallite size of 112 nm estimated using the results from the refienement.

In Eu2O3, we have observed a new peak at around 7.4 GPa of pressure which is roughly in agreement with our previously reported Raman data in which the phase transition started around 4.79 GPa of pressure25. Although, we cannot exactly compare the starting pressure in the case of XRD data as pressure is increased manually in both cases, however, in both investigations, i.e., Raman and XRD studies, we have observed the transition from cubic to hexagonal phase. It may also be mentioned here that Raman investigations are more sensitive to structural changes and therefore, lattice disturbances prior to shifting to a new phase are more likely to be reflected earlier in the Raman measurements as compared to XRD measurements. Also, these results are in agreement with other researchers, in terms of the observation of the cubic to hexagonal phase transition22,23. Yu et al.23 reported a phase transition in the nano Eu2O3 having crystallite size of 18 nm which is less than our crystallite size and hence higher transition pressure for Eu2O3. Further, this observation is also consistent with our observation in case of Lu2O3 and Tm2O3. It is important to mention here that all the presently obtained results of the HPXRD data agree more or less with our previously reported results of high-pressure Raman investigations reported elsewhere25,30. In all these studies the mixture of methanol:ethanol in the 4:1 is used as the pressure tranmitting medium which has a hydrostatic pressure limit of 10.5 GPa33. As reported, non-hydrostatic pressure may cause deviatoric stresses and lead to significant broadening above the hydrostatic limit48. However, in the present exercise, we did not observe such an increase in the line-widths and therefore, deviatoric stresses, if present, apparently do not play a major role in determining the phase transition. This fact can also be supported by Eu2O3 data where the phase transition initiated below the hydrostatic limit.

In present case, the higher value of the transition pressure can be attributed to the smaller crystallite size of 30 nm and 35 nm in Lu and Tm oxides. Several researchers have reported similar behaviour for a number of other REOs29,49. Also, our group has earlier carried out studies on a number of other REOs and observed the higher stability of nanocrystalline materials43,44,45,50,51,52. It is therefore implied that the crystallite size plays a role in the transition paths and well as high pressure phases assumed by the nano-REOs. The higher stability of the Lu and Tm oxide nanomaterials can be attributed to the fact that polymorphic transition is part of solid–solid phase transformation where the nucleation usually occurs at the defect site in the lattice. However, in case of the nanocrystalline materials the defect density is limited due to which we need to overpressure the system to induce a phase transition. This over pressuring of the system explains the higher transition pressure in case of the smaller nanocrystalline materials. These observations are also consistent with the lower transition pressure observed for Eu2O3 with a larger crystallite size of 66 nm.

It is also worth mentioning that, as the number of f-electrons increase, the ionic radii of the lanthanides decreases which is also known as the lanthanide contraction. And due to this contraction, the stability of structure increases and as a result higher pressure is needed to change the structure. In our case, Eu has the highest ionic radius followed by Tm and then Lu, which suggests a lower transition pressure for Eu and highest for Lu. This agrees very well with our experimental results. This also agrees with our previously reported results for other REOs wherein the transition pressure was found to increase with decrease in the ionic radii53.

Hence, from the above discussion, the transition trend in the REOs remains the same; however, if we compare the onset pressure and pressure at which transition is completed, the values for nanocrystalline materials are higher than their bulk counterparts. Therefore, it may be surmised that transition pressure has an inverse relationship with the crystallite size. As mentioned, in all the presently investigated nanocrystalline materials, we have observed a change in the transition pressure as compared to their reported bulk counterparts and observed that smaller nanocrystalline materials show higher stability as compared to bulk materials23,25,26,27,28,44,46,51,54,55,56,57 and hence higher transition pressure.

A comparison of the reported data is shown graphically in Fig. 6, along with the data of various other oxides. It is evident from the figure that bulk materials have the lowest transition pressure in comparison to their microstructured and nanocrystalline materials. Also, it is important to mention that nanomaterials having lower crystallite size show higher transition pressure.

Transition pressure dependence on the crystallite size for various rare earth oxides23,25,26,27,28,45,47,51,54,55,56,57.

However, the results of the bulk modulus for the nanocrystalline materials are not as straightforward. It is found that the value of the bulk modulus for nanocrystalline materials is found to be lower than their bulk counterpart for some materials40,49, and contrary to this, it is found to be higher for some23,56,57. Some other oxides such as In2O358, Al2O359, TiO260, SnO261 also show a decrease in the bulk modulus with the decrease in the crystallite size.

As mentioned, the competition between the larger surface area and limited density of storage defects can play an important role in deciding compressibility of the materials. Due to the limited density of this defect storage, most of the nanoparticles (size less than the critical size (10–30 nm)) are defect free and hence show greater stability with external stimuli and perturbations and demonstrate higher compressibility which in turn leads to the lower value of the bulk modulus49. As discussed earlier, the higher value of transition pressure can be attributed to the fact that the phase transitions usually start from the defective region.

On the contrary, Yu et al. reported a higher value of the bulk modulus for the nanocrystalline Eu2O3 having crystallite size of 18 nm calculated using the Debye Scherrer equation in comparison to the bulk Eu2O323.

Jiang et al. found the value of bulk modulus of Sm2O3 to be 149 GPa, when B0’ is fixed at 462. However, for the submicron Sm2O3 procured from Acros, Guo et al. reported lesser value of the bulk modulus i.e., 142 GPa40. Yan et al. calculated the bulk modulus for the nano crystalline Ho2O3 having crystallite size of 14 nm estimated using Debye-Scherrer equation, which was 10 % lower than their bulk counterpart49. It is worth mentioning here that the higher value of compressibility of nano crystals is due to the surface effects. As the size increases, the contribution of these surface effects decreases, leading to lower compressibility and hence higher bulk modulus. In case of micron size structure e.g., for crystallite size in micrometre for Er2O3, Guo et al. reported a value of 200 GPa and 8.4 for the bulk modulus and first derivative of the bulk modulus respectively57. On the other hand, for the nanocrystalline Er2O3 the value for the B0 and B’ is found to be 181 and 4.07 respectively by Ren et al. which is less than submicron Er2O356.

Our results are consistent with these results as the value of bulk modulus for the nanomaterials is lower than those reported for the bulk materials for Lu2O3 and Tm2O3. However, in case of Lu2O3, Lin et al. have reported the values which are lower than our values which can be due to the fact that the pulverized crystal has been used for the present studies29. In case of Tm2O3, results by the Irshad et al. are only slightly higher than the reported values which is expected as the study was carried out on the material having a crystallite size of 112 nm27.

It has been reported that with an increase in the atomic number, the value of the bulk modulus increases for the bulk REOs26. However, our present results neither endorse nor refute this statement since the bulk modulus values for the starting cubic phases, although marginally higher for Eu2O3 with larger crystallite size, were found comparable when considering the errors mentioned in the parenthesis. In addition, the values may not be directly compared considering the difference in the nano-size of the samples under investigation.

The present investigations show that smaller nanocrystalline REOs show higher stability as compared to their bulk counterparts as well as larger nano-crystallites. The nano-size profoundly affects the transition pressures as well as the bulk modulus. We observed structural phase transitions in nanocrystalline Lu2O3, Tm2O3 and Eu2O3 under the application of pressure. Transition from cubic to monoclinic phase has been observed for Lu2O3 and Tm2O3, whereas transition from cubic to hexagonal phase has been observed for Eu2O3 due to lower energy of hexagonal phase. The results obtained using high-energy synchrotron XRD studies are consistent with previously reported high-pressure Raman results. The bulk modulus for all the nanocrystalline REOs have been reported which have values lower than their bulk counterparts.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the COD repository, https://www.crystallography.net/cod/result.php.

Shen, Y. et al. A universal multifunctional rare earth oxide coating to stabilize high-voltage lithium layered oxide cathodes. Energy Storage Mater. 56, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2023.01.015 (2023).

Hossain, M. K. et al. A review on recent applications and future prospects of rare earth oxides in corrosion and thermal barrier coatings, catalysts, tribological, and environmental sectors. Ceram. Int. 48, 32588–32612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.07.220 (2022).

Stamenković, T. et al. Characterization and photocatalytic application of SrGd2O4 doped with rare earth Sm3+ and Dy3+ ions. Surf. Interfaces 37, 102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.102755 (2023).

Taşgin, Y., Pekdemir, M. E., Yilmaz, M., Kanca, M. S. & Kök, M. Physical and shielding properties of Er2O3 rare earth oxide compound content on PCL/PEG blend. Polym. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-023-04818-1 (2023).

Eguchi, K. Ceramic materials containing rare earth oxides for solid oxide fuel cell. J. Alloys Compd. 250(1–2), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8388(96)02629-1 (1997).

Alharshan, G. A. et al. Radiation shielding capacity of Li2O-SiO2/GeO2 glasses doped with rare earth oxides: Nuclear security applications. Radiat. Phys. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110703 (2023).

Lian, X. et al. Design and mechanical properties of SiC reinforced Gd2O3/6061Al neutron shielding composites. Ceram. Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.04.092 (2023).

Fornasiero, L., Mix, E., Peters, V., Petermann, K. & Huber, G. New oxide crystals for solid state lasers. Cryst. Res. Technol. 34(2), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4079(199902)34:2%3c255::AID-CRAT255%3e3.0.CO;2-U (1999).

Bulus, I. et al. Europium-doped boro-telluro-dolomite glasses for red laser applications: Basic insight into spectroscopic traits. J. Non Cryst. Solids 534, 119949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2020.119949 (2020).

Hossain, M. K. et al. Current applications and future potential of rare earth oxides in sustainable nuclear, radiation, and energy devices: A review. ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 4(7), 3327–3353. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaelm.2c00069 (2022).

Lee, J. et al. Improvement of oxide chemical mechanical polishing performance by increasing Ce3+/Ce4+ ratio in ceria slurry via hydrogen reduction. Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mssp.2023.107349 (2023).

Sabia, R. & Stevens, H. J. Performance characterization of cerium oxide abrasives for chemical-mechanical polishing of glass. Mach. Sci. Technol. 4(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10940340008945708 (2000).

Bedekar, V. et al. Rare-earth doped gadolinia based phosphors for potential multicolor and white light emitting deep UV LEDs. Nanotechnology 20(12), 125707. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/20/12/125707 (2009).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Nosov, VI, Ponomarev-Stepnoi, NN, Portnoi, KI & Savel'ev, EG Dispersion-Type Absorber Materials for Thermal Reactor Control Rods* (PergammPressLtd, 1965).

Alzahrani, J. S. et al. Optical properties and radiation shielding performance of tellurite glassy composites: Role of rare earth oxides. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 212, 111168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111168 (2023).

Turşucu, A., Elmahroug, Y. & Yılmaz, D. Radiation shielding calculations of some selected rare earth oxides. Radiat. Phys. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111066 (2023).

Dedov, A. G. et al. Oxidative coupling of methane catalyzed by rare earth oxides: Unexpected synergistic effect of the oxide mixtures. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 245(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-860X(02)00641-5 (2003).

Muthulakshmi, V., Balaji, M. & Sundrarajan, M. Biomedical applications of ionic liquid mediated samarium oxide nanoparticles by Andrographis Paniculata leaves extract. Mater. Chem. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122483 (2019).

Jairam, L. S. et al. A review on biomedical and dental applications of cerium oxide nanoparticles—Unearthing the potential of this rare earth metal. J. Rare Earths https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jre.2023.04.009 (2023).

Singh, J. et al. Optical and electro-catalytic studies of nanostructured thulium oxide for vitamin C detection. J. Alloys Compd. 578, 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.06.026 (2013).

Hoekstra, R. Phase relationships in rare earth sesquioxides at high pressure. Inorg. Chem. 5(5), 754–757 (1965).

Sheng, J. et al. The phase transition of Eu 2O 3 under high pressures. Chin. Phys. Lett. 26(7), 076101. https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/26/7/076101 (2009).

Yu, Z., Wang, Q., Ma, Y. & Wang, L. X-ray diffraction and spectroscopy study of nano-Eu2O3structural transformation under high pressure. J. Alloys Compd. 701, 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.01.143 (2017).

Dilawar, N. et al. Structural transition in nanostructured Eu2O3 under high pressures. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 6, 105–113 (2006).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bura, N., Yadav, D., Bhoriya, A., Singh, J. & Dilawar Sharma, N. Influence of varying thermodynamic parameters on the structural behavior of nano-crystalline europium sesquioxide. J. Alloys Compd. 856, 158129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.158129 (2021).

Sahu, P. C., Lonappan, D. & Shekar, N. V. C. High pressure structural studies on rare-earth sesquioxides. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 377, 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/377/1/012015 (2012).

Irshad, K. A. et al. Pressure induced structural phase transition in rare earth sesquioxide Tm2O3: Experiment and ab initio calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 124, 155901. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5049223 (2018).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Jiang, S. et al. Pressure-induced phase transition in cubic Lu2 O3. J. Appl. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3499301 (2010).

Lin, C. M. et al. Phase transitions in Lu2O3 under high pressure. Solid State Commun. 150(33–34), 1564–1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2010.05.046 (2010).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Bura, N., Yadav, D., Singh, J. & Sharma, N. D. Phonon variations in nano-crystalline lutetium sesquioxide under the influence of varying temperature and pressure. J. Appl. Phys. 126, 245901. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5125702 (2019).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Ren, X. et al. Anomalous pressure-induced phase transformation in nano-crystalline erbium sesquioxide (Er2O3): Partial amorphization under compression. High Press Res. 34(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2013.867039 (2014).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Liu, B. et al. High-pressure Raman study on CeO2 nanospheres self-assembled by 5nm CeO2 nanoparticles. Phys. Status Solidi B Basic Res. 248(5), 1154–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.201000807 (2011).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Klotz, S., Chervin, J. C., Munsch, P. & Le Marchand, G. Hydrostatic limits of 11 pressure transmitting media. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 42(7), 075413. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/42/7/075413 (2009).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Bura, N., Bhoriya, A., Yadav, D., Singh, J. & Dilawar Sharma, N. Temperature-dependent phonon behavior in nanocrystalline Tm2O3: Fano interference and phonon anharmonicity. J.Phys. Chem. C 125(33), 18259–18269. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c04250 (2021).

Irshad, K. A. & Chandra Shekar, N. V. Anomalous lattice compressibility of hexagonal Eu2O3. Mater. Chem. Phys. 195, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2017.04.012 (2017).

Ren, X., Yan, X., Yu, Z., Li, W. & Wang, L. Photoluminescence and phase transition in Er2O3 under high pressure. J. Alloys Compd. 725, 941–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.07.219 (2017).

Jiang, S. et al. Phase transformation of Ho2O3 at high pressure. J. Appl. Phys. 110(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3603027 (2011).

Jiang, S. et al. Structural transformations in cubic Dy2O3 at high pressures. Solid State Commun. 169, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2013.06.027 (2013).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Bai, L. et al. Pressure-induced phase transformations in cubic Gd2 O 3. J. Appl. Phys. 106(7), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3236580 (2009).

Guo, Q., Zhao, Y., Jiang, C., Mao, W. L. & Wang, Z. Phase transformation in Sm2O3 at high pressure: In situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction study and ab initio DFT calculation. Solid State Commun. 145(5–6), 250–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2007.11.019 (2008).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Lonappan, D. et al. Cubic to hexagonal structural transformation in Gd2O3 at high pressure. Philos. Mag. Lett. 88(7), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500830802232534 (2008).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Zhang, F. X., Lang, M., Wang, J. W., Becker, U. & Ewing, R. C. Structural phase transitions of cubic Gd2 O3 at high pressures. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 78(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.064114 (2008).

Dilawar Sharma, N. et al. Pressure-induced structural transition trends in nanocrystalline rare-earth sesquioxides: A Raman investigation. J. Phys. Chem. C 120(21), 11679–11689. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b02104 (2016).

Pandey, S. D., Samanta, K., Singh, J., Sharma, N. D. & Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Anharmonic behavior and structural phase transition in Yb2O 3. AIP Adv. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4858421 (2013).

Sharma, N. D. et al. Pressure-induced anomalous phase transformation in nano-crystalline dysprosium sesquioxide. J. Raman Spectrosc. 42(3), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrs.2720 (2011).

Article ADS MathSciNet CAS Google Scholar

Dilawar, N. et al. Anomalous high pressure behaviour in nanosized rare earth sesquioxides. Nanotechnology 19(11), 115703. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/19/11/115703 (2008).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Richard, D., Errico, L. A. & Rentería, M. Structural, electronic and hyperfine properties on Sm2O3, Eu2O3 and Gd2O3 phases. Comput. Condens. Matter 16, e00327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocom.2018.e00327 (2018).

Errandonea, D., Muñoz, A. & Gonzalez-Platas, J. Comment on ‘High-pressure x-ray diffraction study of YBO3 /Eu3+, GdBO3, and EuBO3: Pressure-induced amorphization in GdBO3’. J. Appl. Phys. 115, 216101 (2014).

Yan, X., Ren, X., He, D., Chen, B. & Yang, W. Mechanical behaviors and phase transition of Ho2O3 nanocrystals under high pressure. J. Appl. Phys. 116(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4890341 (2014).

Dogra, S. et al. High pressure behavior of nano-crystalline CeO2 up to 35 GPa: A Raman investigation. High Press. Res. 31(2), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2011.576674 (2011).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Pandey, S. D., Samanta, K., Singh, J., Sharma, N. D. & Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Raman scattering of rare earth sesquioxide Ho2O3: A pressure and temperature dependent study. J. Appl. Phys. 116(13), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4896832 (2014).

Dogra, S. et al. Phase progression via phonon modes in lanthanide dioxides under pressure. Vib. Spectrosc. 70, 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2013.12.005 (2014).

N. and Dilawar Sharma and A. K.; Bandyopadhyay, “Chapter 12 “Raman Spectroscopic Studies of the Rare Earth Sesquioxides and Related Compounds under High Pressures,” in Rare Earths: New Research, Z. Liu, Ed., Nova Science publishers.

J. P. McClure, High pressure phase transitions in lanthanide oxides.

Dilawar Sharma, N., Singh, J., Vijay, A., Samanta, K. & Dogra Pandey, S. Investigations of anharmonic effects via phonon mode variations in nanocrystalline Dy2O3, Gd2O3 and Y2O3. J. Raman Spectrosc. 48(6), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrs.5120 (2017).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Ren, X., Yan, X., Yu, Z., Li, W. & Yang, K. Size-dependent phase transition of Er 2 O 3 under high pressure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 143102 (2018).

Guo, Q. et al. Pressure-induced cubic to monoclinic phase transformation in erbium sesquioxide Er2O3. Inorg. Chem. 46(15), 6164–6169. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic070154g (2007).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sans, J. A. et al. Structural and vibrational properties of corundum-type In2O3 nanocrystals under compression. Nanotechnology 28, 205701. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/aa6a3f (2017).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Chen, B., Penwell, D., Benedetti, L. R., Jeanloz, R. & Kruger, M. B. Particle-size effect on the compressibility of nanocrystalline alumina. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 66(14), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.144101 (2002).

Al-Khatatbeh, Y., Lee, K. K. M. & Kiefer, B. Compressibility of nanocrystalline TiO 2 anatase. J. Phys. Chem. C 116(40), 21635–21639. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp3075699 (2012).

He, Y. et al. High-pressure behavior of SnO2 nanocrystals. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 72(21), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.212102 (2005).

Jiang, S., Liu, J., Lin, C., Li, X. & Li, Y. High-pressure x-ray diffraction and Raman spectroscopy of phase transitions in Sm2O3. J. Appl. Phys. 113(11), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4795504 (2013).

The authors are grateful to Director, CSIR-NPL for constant encouragement and to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as well as University Grants Commission (UGC) for providing research fellowships under the grant numbers 19/06/2016(i)EU-V, 18/06/2017(i)EU-V and 1448| (CSIR- UGC NET DEC. 2017) respectively.

CSIR- National Physical Laboratory, Dr. K. S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, 110012, India

Neha Bura, Ankit Bhoriya, Deepa Yadav, Bal Govind, Jasveer Singh & Nita Dilawar Sharma

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, 201002, India

Neha Bura, Ankit Bhoriya, Deepa Yadav, Bal Govind & Nita Dilawar Sharma

High Pressure and Synchrotron Radiation Physics Division, Physics Group, HBNI, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, 400085, India

Srihari Velaga & Himanshu Kumar Poswal

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

N.B. carried out the preliminary investigations and wrote the manuscript. A.B. and D.Y. helped during the experiments. V.S. supervised the experiments. J.S. and B.G. helped in the analysis of the data. H.K.P. and N.D. edited the manuscript and supervised. All the authors reviewed the manuscipt.

Correspondence to Nita Dilawar Sharma.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Bura, N., Bhoriya, A., Yadav, D. et al. Pressure driven polymorphic transitions in nanocrystalline Lu2O3, Tm2O3 and Eu2O3. Sci Rep 13, 17365 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42181-3

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42181-3

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

cas 54761 04 5 Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Pressure driven polymorphic transitions in nanocrystalline Lu2O3, Tm2O3 and Eu2O3 | Scientific Reports