Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Experimental measurement of the diamond nucleation landscape reveals classical and nonclassical features

View ORCID ProfileMatthew A. Gebbie, Hitoshi Ishiwata, Patrick J. McQuade, Vaclav Petrak, Andrew Taylor, Christopher Freiwald, Jeremy E. Dahl, Robert M. K. Carlson, Andrey A. Fokin, Peter R. Schreiner, Zhi-Xun Shen, Milos Nesladek, and Nicholas A. Melosh
  1. aDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  2. bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  3. cDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan;
  4. dInstitute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-18221 Prague, Czech Republic;
  5. eInstitute of Materials Research, University of Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
  6. fInstitute for Materials Research in Microelectronics, Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
  7. gInstitute of Organic Chemistry, Justus Liebig University, D-35392 Giessen, Germany;
  8. hDepartment of Organic Chemistry, Igor Sikorsky Kiev Polytechnic Institute, 03056 Kiev, Ukraine;
  9. iApplied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS August 14, 2018 115 (33) 8284-8289; first published August 1, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803654115
Matthew A. Gebbie
aDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew A. Gebbie
Hitoshi Ishiwata
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
cDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick J. McQuade
aDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vaclav Petrak
dInstitute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-18221 Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Taylor
dInstitute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-18221 Prague, Czech Republic;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Freiwald
eInstitute of Materials Research, University of Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
fInstitute for Materials Research in Microelectronics, Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremy E. Dahl
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert M. K. Carlson
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrey A. Fokin
gInstitute of Organic Chemistry, Justus Liebig University, D-35392 Giessen, Germany;
hDepartment of Organic Chemistry, Igor Sikorsky Kiev Polytechnic Institute, 03056 Kiev, Ukraine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter R. Schreiner
gInstitute of Organic Chemistry, Justus Liebig University, D-35392 Giessen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zhi-Xun Shen
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
iApplied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Milos Nesladek
eInstitute of Materials Research, University of Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
fInstitute for Materials Research in Microelectronics, Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas A. Melosh
aDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
bStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nmelosh@stanford.edu
  1. Edited by Catherine J. Murphy, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, and approved July 9, 2018 (received for review March 1, 2018)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Nucleation is the limiting step for thermodynamic phase transitions. While classical models predict that nucleation should be extremely rare, nucleation is surprisingly rapid in the gas-phase synthesis of diamond, silicon, and other industrial materials. We developed an approach for measuring nucleation landscapes using atomically defined precursors and find that diamond critical nuclei contain no bulk atoms, which leads to a nucleation barrier that is four orders of magnitude lower than prior bulk estimations. Our findings suggest that metastable molecular precursors play a key role in lowering nucleation barriers during materials synthesis and provide quantitative support for recent theoretical proposals of multistep nucleation pathways with much lower barriers than the predictions of classical nucleation theory.

Abstract

Nucleation is a core scientific concept that describes the formation of new phases and materials. While classical nucleation theory is applied across wide-ranging fields, nucleation energy landscapes have never been directly measured at the atomic level, and experiments suggest that nucleation rates often greatly exceed the predictions of classical nucleation theory. Multistep nucleation via metastable states could explain unexpectedly rapid nucleation in many contexts, yet experimental energy landscapes supporting such mechanisms are scarce, particularly at nanoscale dimensions. In this work, we measured the nucleation energy landscape of diamond during chemical vapor deposition, using a series of diamondoid molecules as atomically defined protonuclei. We find that 26-carbon atom clusters, which do not contain a single bulk atom, are postcritical nuclei and measure the nucleation barrier to be more than four orders of magnitude smaller than prior bulk estimations. These data support both classical and nonclassical concepts for multistep nucleation and growth during the gas-phase synthesis of diamond and other semiconductors. More broadly, these measurements provide experimental evidence that agrees with recent conceptual proposals of multistep nucleation pathways with metastable molecular precursors in diverse processes, ranging from cloud formation to protein crystallization, and nanoparticle synthesis.

  • nucleation
  • diamond
  • nanomaterials
  • thermodynamics
  • plasma synthesis

Classical nucleation theory (1⇓⇓–4) proposes that nucleation is a thermally activated process, where atomic clusters, called nuclei, stochastically evolve from metastable solution to form thermodynamically stable phases and materials. In classical models, nuclei are often assumed to be microscopic clusters of the final bulk phase, and nucleation barriers originate in a competition between unfavorable surface energies and favorable bulk free energies, which exhibit differing scaling with particle size. Below a certain size, called the critical size, the unfavorable surface energy is dominant, biasing protonuclei toward dissolution. Random energy and concentration fluctuations allow the protonuclei to grow or shrink diffusively within the nucleation energy landscape, occasionally overcoming the critical nucleation barrier, leading to rapid particle growth (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Diamond nucleation landscape and diamondoid protonuclei. (A) Approach for measuring nanoscale thermodynamic energy landscapes during nucleation. Molecular nuclei of atomically defined sizes and shapes, diamondoids (28), were used to map out the nucleation energy landscape during diamond PECVD by starting at precise locations on the thermodynamic nucleation energy landscape and measuring relative nucleation probabilities. (B) Diamondoid order, N, versus the number of carbon atoms in each diamondoid (Left) and diamondoid van der Waals surface areas (Right). N is defined as 1 for adamantane, and each subsequent addition of a four-carbon isobutyl substituent increases N by an integer value. (C) Molecular structures of the diamondoid protonuclei, ranging from 10 to 26 carbon atoms in size, are shown below the plot. The diamondoid order, N, is shown above each chemical name. Diamondoids were functionalized with POCl2 self-assembly groups (29) for covalent attachment to PECVD substrates.

The difference in scaling between surface and volumetric energies leads to two key hallmarks of classical nucleation theory: (i) an exponential relationship between subcritical nuclei surface areas and the probability of crossing the nucleation barrier, and (ii) a critical size where relative nucleation probabilities abruptly increase, indicating a boundary between the subcritical regime, where nuclei are thermodynamically biased to dissolve, and the postcritical regime, where nuclei are biased to grow.

Recent theoretical advances (5⇓–7) have extended classical nucleation theory, for example, by including both size and density as order parameters to describe nucleation pathways (6) or including size-dependent interfacial free energies (7). Multistep pathways, additional thermodynamic barriers, and the existence of distinct subcritical and postcritical regimes with differing scaling in nucleation rates and probabilities are key elements of these updated theories.

However, there is still a large discrepancy between the theoretical models and experimental measurements, which show that nucleation occurs much more rapidly than predicted by classical nucleation theory (8⇓⇓–11). Resolving the origin of such rapid nucleation rates remains an area of active investigation, often explained by metastable states that lower nucleation barriers (9⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–15) or multistep pathways. One of the central challenges has been that these essential regimes have remained inaccessible experimentally. This is particularly true for industrially important gas-phase reactions, such as plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of diamond and silicon (16⇓⇓–19). For example, diamond is used as a functional coating in many applications (16) and is an emerging material for quantum information technologies (20) and advanced biolabeling (21). While there is a rich history of studying diamond growth, the extreme conditions of diamond synthesis have prevented the measurement of diamond nucleation energetics (17, 18).

Nucleation energy landscapes have never been measured at the atomic level due to the extreme challenges associated with observing the dynamic, few-atom clusters thought to participate in nucleation processes. Recently, researchers have made strides toward visualizing nucleation in liquid–liquid and colloidal systems, where optical imaging was used to study colloids (22, 23) and proteins (12, 24), since large particle sizes permit direct observation. Emerging techniques, like liquid-state transmission electron microscopy (25⇓–27), enabled striking advances in visualizing nanoscale growth. However, the putative dynamic nuclei, in the order of tens-of-atoms size, remain inaccessible, and questions surrounding the influence of the probe beam remain.

Rather than attempt to directly image few-atom clusters, we developed a way to measure nucleation energy landscapes by creating atomically defined putative protonuclei and quantifying the relative densities of diamond nanoparticles, ρ (in particles per square meter), formed from monolayers of each protonuclei. Different-sized subcritical nuclei have different free energies with respect to the critical nucleus (Fig. 1A) and grow or contract stochastically over time. If a nucleus reaches the critical size, r* (Fig. 1A), the particle is taken to then grow deterministically. Hence, if seed protonuclei are larger than r*, then there should be an abrupt increase in the observed particle density.

The probability, P, that a protonuclei crosses this nucleation barrier can then be calculated as a mean first-passage time (5), which scales exponentially with the energy difference between a nucleus of size i and the critical nucleus of size r*, as shown in Eq. 1:P∼e−ΔGi∗kBT.[1]where P is the barrier passage probability; ΔGi* (in joules) is the free energy difference between ΔGi (in joules), which is the free energy of a nucleus of a specific size i, and ΔG* (in joules), which is the free energy maximum at the critical size r*; kB (in joules per kelvin) is the Boltzmann constant; and T (in kelvin) is the temperature. Eq. 1 is only rigorously applicable to nucleation pathways with a single reaction coordinate and where particles grow deterministically upon reaching the critical size. More advanced models have examined how this equation will change under differing assumptions (6, 7).

By starting with monodisperse monolayers of diamondoid protonuclei, we initialize the system at specific points on the hypothetical nucleation energy landscape in Fig. 1A. Assuming that all of the diamondoids are located along the same nucleation pathway, the measured density of fully formed diamond nanoparticles, ρ, should scale as the nucleation barrier passage probability, P. As a result, by measuring the relative number of particles that nucleate from subcritical diamondoids, we can ascertain the relative nucleation energetics.

Interestingly, if one of the diamondoids is larger than r*, then we should also observe an abrupt, superexponential increase in density, ρ, as nucleation and growth probabilities enter a different regime for protonuclei that exceed the critical size, since there is no thermodynamic barrier to growth above the critical size. The atomically defined series of nuclei we studied were formed using diamondoids (28), which are molecular fragments of diamond, ranging from 10 to 26 carbon atoms (Fig. 1C).

Results

Nucleation Densities from Diamondoid Monolayers.

To test this concept for diamond, a silicon substrate was functionalized with a monolayer of phosphonyl dichloride (POCl2)-modified diamondoid protonuclei, which were covalently attached to the surface via P–O–Si bonds (29). PECVD diamond growth was then performed using standard conditions, resulting in different densities of large diamond particles depending on the size of the diamondoid seed (Fig. 2). The number of diamond particles per square millimeter was measured with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), representing the probability that the protonuclei crossed the nucleation barrier before being etched away by the plasma.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Diamondoid-seeded PECVD growth densities. (A) Photograph of PECVD growth using 10 × 6-mm silicon wafers in a 1% CH4, 99% H2 plasma. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of representative diamond particles. (White scale bars: 500 nm.) (B) Representative SEM images comparing nanoparticle growth densities on a wafer seeded with the largest precritical diamondoid [1(2)3]tetramantane (Top) to a wafer seeded with the postcritical diamondoid [1(2,3)4]pentamantane. The small white dots are faceted diamond nanoparticles, as shown in A. (C) Particle growth densities following vertical substrate growth at 750 °C with a feed gas concentration of 99% H2 and 1% CH4. Each data point corresponds to at least eight independent experiments for the diamondoid pictured, with the diamondoid attachment orientation as shown. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. The 750 °C conditions occurred at a distance of 2 mm from the top edge of the seeded wafer, and other temperature conditions during the vertical growth are shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S1. Diamond growth densities were largely independent of temperature for the 100 °C range tested in the vertical configuration. The purple shading illustrates nucleation densities on unseeded vertical orientation substrates that were immersed in pure toluene before growth.

Fig. 2C shows the measured diamond nanoparticle densities grown from six different diamondoid monolayers, grown at 750 °C in a 99% H2, 1% CH4 PECVD plasma at 23.5 torr and 350 W. A vertical wafer configuration (30) enabled testing multiple conditions in parallel, as the temperature of the wafer varies from 950 °C at the top to 250 °C at the bottom. Each point corresponds to the average particle density from at least eight different independent experiments for each diamondoid. The diamond particles exhibited a faceted, “quasispherical” shape (Fig. 2A) with a large diamond–silicon contact angle, so the substrate surface energy has minimal impact on the measured diamond nucleation energy barrier.

To ensure that the measured growth densities map the underlying thermodynamic nucleation energy landscape, the experiments reported in Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1 were carried out under very low carbon supersaturation, where nucleation is quasi-reversible and governed by the underlying thermodynamic energy landscape (4⇓–6). Diamond nanoparticles grown under the 1% CH4, 99% H2 conditions shown in Fig. 2 have narrow size distributions and preferentially exhibit the lowest surface energy (111) facet of the diamond lattice. Further decreasing the CH4 content in the PECVD feed gas to less than 0.25% results in full etching of the diamondoid monolayers. These observations are consistent with nucleation and growth in a largely thermodynamically controlled regime.

As shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S2, raising the supersaturation of carbon in the plasma phase by increasing the CH4 content of the feed gas or replacing H2 with Ar, which is inert, readily drives nucleation and growth into a kinetic regime. For example, under feed gas conditions of 1% CH4 in 99% Ar, selected to mimic the conditions of ultrananocrystalline diamond (UNCD) synthesis (31), diamond growth densities are much higher, but particle size distributions are heterogeneous and diamond particles form rod-like shapes due to preferential growth of the higher surface energy (100) facet for kinetic reasons (SI Appendix, Fig. S2). Increasing the concentration of CH4 in the feed gas above 10% resulted in the exclusive growth of graphitic carbon, even in the presence of H2.

To assess the generality of our conclusions, diamond growth densities were determined at different heights on the substrate, representing a range of plasma conditions in the low supersaturation regime. Experiments were also repeated with a different PECVD chamber with a remote plasma source. As shown in Table 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1, the nucleation barrier, critical nucleus size, and diamond–plasma interfacial energy were in agreement across varying conditions, despite vastly different temperatures and nucleation rates, showing the results are general and not particular to one chamber or growth geometry.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Nucleation barriers and calculated diamond–plasma interfacial energies

In this low supersaturation regime, relative growth densities as a function of particle size exhibit the two key elements of classical nucleation theory. First, the growth density depends exponentially on the protonuclei size from adamantane through tetramantane, with the slope remaining strikingly consistent over a large range of conditions. Second, the growth density increases abruptly upon reaching pentamantane, exhibiting a pronounced break from the exponential relationship of the smaller diamondoids.

A nucleation barrier where pentamantane exceeds the critical size is the most plausible explanation for these two observations. The nucleus size appears to be the dominant factor during nucleation, yet symmetry also plays a secondary role, as evidenced by the higher diamond density seeded by the symmetric [1(2,3)4]pentamantane isomer, relative to the lower-symmetry [12(1)3]pentamantane. Since both isomers of pentamantane exceed the critical size, these data suggest a critical nucleus size between 22 and 26 carbon atoms or about 0.8 nm in diameter.

Determination of Nucleation Energy Barrier and Interfacial Energy.

A significant advantage of this approach is that relative nucleation energy barriers and the effective surface energy of the diamondoid protonuclei can be determined without needing to assume that critical nuclei behave as small clusters of the bulk phase. The energy barriers separating each of the diamondoid molecules in the subcritical regime were determined by normalizing the growth densities of each of the subcritical diamondoid nuclei to that of [1(2)3]tetramantane as a reference, using Eqs. 2 and 3:ρi∼e−ΔGi∗kBT,[2]ln(ρiρtetra)=−ΔGi−tetrakBT.[3]where i corresponds to a specific subcritical diamondoid protonuclei, ρi (in particles per square millimeter) is the density of particles grown from the subcritical diamondoid, ρtetra (in particles per square millimeter) is the density of particles grown from [1(2)3]tetramantane, ΔGi-tetra (in joules) is the free energy difference between each subcritical diamondoid and [1(2)3]tetramantane, kB (in joules per kelvin) is the Boltzmann constant, and T (in kelvin) is the temperature. When the relative energy barrier between each subcritical diamondoid and [1(2)3]tetramantane is plotted versus the difference in van der Waals surface areas between each subcritical diamondoid and [1(2)3]tetramantane (Fig. 3), the slope yields the plasma–nucleus interfacial energy.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Estimation of plasma–nucleus interfacial energy calculated based on relative nucleation probabilities. The y axis (ΔGx-tetra) is the proportion of the nucleation energy barrier separating the subcritical diamondoids using [1(2)3]tetramantane as a reference at 750 °C. ΔGx-tetra is determined using Eq. 3, and the error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. The x axis (ΔA) is the calculated van der Waals surface area differences between each of the subcritical diamondoids and [1(2)3]tetramantane. The 12 ± 6 mJ⋅m−2 slope is the energy cost per unit surface area created during diamond nucleation, assuming that each diamondoid is at different points along the nucleation pathway.

Fig. 3 shows the measured subcritical energy landscape at 750 °C. The nucleation barrier is in the order of 10−20 J, which is comparable to thermal energy at the PECVD temperatures (kBT), and the slope yields a diamond–plasma interfacial energy of 12 ± 6 mJ⋅m−2 at 750 °C. As shown in Table 1, the nucleation barriers and interfacial energies agree to within a factor of 3 across the conditions tested.

Discussion

Our results show that the probability of diamond nanoparticle growth exponentially depends on the size of the diamondoid seed. Furthermore, we observe an abrupt increase in diamond growth densities at a critical size between 22 and 26 carbon atoms (Fig. 2). The exponential scaling and the presence of a critical size are two key predictions of classical nucleation theory. From our results, the measured energy of the nucleation barrier is on the order of 10−20 J, which is several kBT under growth conditions.

In contrast, capillary models of diamond nucleation (18, 32, 33) using energetics calculated from the bulk diamond lattice and surface energy, γcleave, predict an interfacial energy of 1–3 J⋅m−2, leading to an estimated nucleation barrier of 10−16 J. This exceeds 1,000 kBT under diamond growth conditions and implies a critical nucleus of about 5,000 atoms (Fig. 4A). Within this previous theoretical framework, diamondoids should be incapable of seeding diamond growth.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Schematic of diamond nucleation reaction coordinates. (A) Nucleation of condensed carbon phases from supersaturated carbon vapor, where relative chemical potentials are per carbon atom with two distinct states: μvapor and μsolid. Estimating nucleation barriers from the bulk cleavage energy leads to a barrier exceeding 1,000 kBT under PECVD conditions; this approach inherently assumes that nucleation is a single-step process into the bulk crystalline diamond phase. In contrast, the measured nucleation barrier is in the order of several values in kBT. (B) Two-step diamond growth mechanism as the simplest example of a multistep diamond nucleation and growth pathway, with three distinct states: μvapor, μsurface, and μbulk. The critical nucleus is composed entirely of surface atoms with diamond-like bonding, requiring an additional bulk transformation step to form bulk diamond. The carbon supersaturation in the plasma drives nucleation, and the nucleation barrier is determined by the plasma–nucleus interfacial energy, which is strongly influenced by the diamond surface termination (38).

These capillary calculations are two to four orders of magnitude larger than the 10−20-J barrier and 26-atom critical nucleus measured here. For prior classical, single-step models of diamond nucleation to be consistent with the probabilities we measure, the driving chemical potential in the plasma would need to exceed 4,500 kJ⋅mol−1, which is not physically realistic (32). Therefore, while the nucleation energy landscape retains the size dependence of classical theory, bulk properties cannot be used to quantitatively predict PECVD diamond nucleation energetics.

In addition, the postcritical nucleus, pentamantane, does not contain a single “bulk” atom, calling into question the concept that the driving force for nucleation is formation of the bulk phase. In classical nucleation theory, the nucleation barrier results from differing scaling between a favorable “volumetric” energy that results from the creation of bulk atoms and an unfavorable “surface” energy from the creation of surface atoms. Here, we find that all of the atoms in diamond critical nuclei are surface atoms and that the critical barrier is crossed before forming internal atoms with volumetric scaling. Thus, our results suggest that the presence of a nucleation barrier during diamond synthesis has a different molecular mechanism than in classical nucleation theory.

We propose that the nucleation-driving force for these molecular clusters comes from the formation of favorable surface chemical bonds that scale as the nucleus surface area, which replaces the bulk volumetric driving force of classical nucleation theory. The barrier still originates in an unfavorable entropic contribution, which is captured by the effective molecular surface energy determined in Fig. 3. Since both the creation of favorable surface bonds and the growth of unfavorable interface scale as the nucleus surface area, the abrupt change in nucleation probability shown in Fig. 2 cannot result purely from geometric scaling arguments. To be consistent within this model, at least one of the two surface terms must exhibit an explicit size dependence to give rise to the observed diamond critical nucleation behavior.

A size-dependent interfacial energy is one plausible explanation for the critical barrier. For example, a recent theoretical study of nucleation using model “polycube” clusters shows that size-dependent surface energies may be a key element of nucleation (7). Here, the critical increase in diamond nucleation probability could be explained if the nucleus–plasma interfacial energy abruptly decreases between a cluster size of 22 and 26 carbon atoms. Alternatively, the surface-bonding energy could also have a size dependence. Additionally, a recent extension to classical nucleation theory predicts that cluster distribution functions for nuclei in the subcritical regime may exhibit departures from a diffusive exploration of phase space characterized by the Boltzmann population distribution of classical nucleation theory in certain cases (6). The implications of this finding remain under active investigation, and further theoretical progress along these lines may shed additional insight into the data reported here.

Consequently, our measurements show that two key tenets of classical nucleation theory are observed at molecular scales, but with origins that differ from the capillary assumption-based intuition of competing geometric scaling between nucleus surface areas and volumetric energies. Accordingly, these measurements support recent suggestions (8, 11, 34) to unify both classical and nonclassical concepts into a comprehensive framework.

One model that is consistent with our observations is that diamond growth occurs via a two-step pathway with distinct nucleation and bulk transformation steps, as shown in Fig. 4B. Critical diamond nucleation occurs through the formation of metastable, hydrogen-terminated diamondoid clusters before forming the bulk phase. The nucleation step follows the expected exponential size dependence of classical theory, but with an interfacial energy and nucleation energy barrier that is much lower than ideal classical estimates that rely on bulk properties. The second, bulk transformation step then occurs as diamondoid nuclei atoms react into bulk diamond atoms.

From our results, we hypothesize that crystalline diamond grows when the chemical potential of carbon in the plasma phase is closely matched to the surface energy of the protonuclei, rather than the ideal classical case where crystalline diamond would only form when the chemical potential of carbon in the plasma is closely matched to that of bulk diamond. This picture agrees with and provides explicit experimental evidence for thermodynamic energy landscapes that support recent proposals of multistep nucleation in diverse contexts, ranging from cloud formation (34) to protein crystallization (35), biomineralization (9), and nanoparticle synthesis (10).

Furthermore, a 26-carbon critical nucleus resolves an outstanding question surrounding growth of diamond versus graphite in PECVD reactors. Prior estimates of carbon critical nuclei being composed of several thousand atoms (33) imply that diamond nuclei should not form thermodynamically relative to graphite (17). However, hydrogen-terminated diamond is more thermodynamically stable than hydrogen-terminated graphite for carbon clusters of less than about 100 carbon atoms in size (36). Our measurement of a 26-carbon critical nucleus resolves this paradox by showing that sp3 diamond-like particles are the favored state at the critical size, consistent with ultra-nanocrystalline diamond growth (31), where sub–5-nm crystalline domain sizes are frequently observed.

These results also have significant implications to other industrial vapor deposition processes. For example, homogeneous nucleation of silicon and other semiconductors impedes the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) production of crystalline films (37), but the cleavage energy of bulk silicon (38) is around 1–2 J⋅m−2, leading to a calculated 10−16-J barrier for homogeneous nucleation. This implies that nucleation should almost never occur, which is in contrast to experimental observations. Since the chemical nature of hydrogenated silicon and diamond surfaces are similar (38), multistep models would predict a nucleation barrier on the order of 10−20 J for silicon. This increases the probability for silicon nucleation during CVD by the tremendous factor of e1,000, at which point the prevalence of silicon nucleation during CVD is readily understood.

Overall, this direct experimental measurement of a nanoscale nucleation energy landscape provides a quantitative test of classical nucleation theory at the molecular level. We find that the diamond nucleation landscape exhibits both the size dependence and abrupt change in growth rate of classical nucleation theory (4). Unexpectedly, we also find that critical nuclei are diamond-like carbon clusters that do not contain a single bulk atom, meaning that a critical size can be characteristic of a system where there is no distinction between surface and bulk effects.

Thus, the nucleation barrier and critical size do not seem to originate from a geometric scaling competition between surface and volumetric energies, but instead appear to arise from either an interfacial energy or surface bonding energy that changes with particle size. These results highlight the importance of revising classical nucleation theory to include complex pathways with metastable molecular precursors that cannot be understood as microscopic clusters with bulk properties (6⇓⇓⇓–10, 34).

Materials and Methods

Diamondoid Purification and Functionalization.

Adamantane, diamantane, triamantane, [121]tetramantane, [1(2)3]tetramantane, [12(1)3]pentamantane (racemic), and [1(2,3)4]pentamantane were isolated and purified from petroleum extracts using previously reported protocols (28). Mass spectrometry, gas chromatography, and NMR spectroscopy were used to ensure diamondoid purity. Diamondoid molecules were then selectively functionalized via multistep synthesis (29) to enable covalent attachment of diamondoid self-assembled monolayers on oxidized silicon surfaces. Adamantane was also functionalized with a 2(trichlorosilyl)ethyl group (SiCl3) at the 1-position to assess the impact of attachment chemistry under the milder remote plasma CVD growth conditions. Diamond growth densities were independent of attachment chemistry for POCl2 and SiCl3 functionalization, further confirming that carbon etching and addition primarily determine diamondoid nucleation energetics.

Formation of Diamondoid Self-Assembled Monolayers.

Diamondoid monolayers were attached to plasma-activated silicon surfaces via the formation of bidentate P–O bonds between POCl2 groups and Si–OH surface groups or tridentate Si–O bonds between SiCl3 groups and Si–OH groups. Control experiments utilizing nonfunctionalized diamondoids were ineffective for seeding diamond growth, highlighting the importance of covalent attachment. Additional control experiments with POCl2 functionalized nondiamondoid carbonaceous monolayers, including linear alkanes and aryl substituents, were ineffective for seeding diamond growth, confirming the importance of diamondoid seeds. Further details of monolayer self-assembly and characterization are provided in SI Appendix, section 1.1.

PECVD Diamond Growth.

High-temperature vertical growths were carried out using a Seki Technotron PECVD system with a 2.45-GHz direct plasma microwave source (see SI Appendix, section 1.2 for full details). Nucleation and growth experiments in the low supersaturation thermodynamic regime were carried out under the following growth conditions: 23.5 torr, 300 standard cubic centimeters per min (sccm) H2, 3 sccm CH4, and 350 W for the first 15 min of nucleation and growth and 23.5 torr, 300 sccm H2, 1.5 sccm CH4, and 350 W for the last 45 min of growth. CH4 concentrations were reduced from 1 to 0.5% after the first 15 min to suppress diamond renucleation while diamond particles were grown to a large enough size to enable rapid determination of diamond growth densities via SEM. Decreasing the feed gas concentration of CH4 to below 0.25% resulted in complete etching of the diamondoid seeds.

Nucleation and growth experiments in the high-supersaturation kinetic regime were carried out under the following growth conditions: 15 torr, 90 sccm Ar, 1 sccm CH4, and 300 W for 1 h. Increasing the feed gas concentration of CH4 to above 10% resulted in the exclusive growth of graphitic carbon.

Control experiments were carried out where silicon wafers were immersed in pure toluene for at least 48 h and then used for vertical growth experiments. Diamond nanoparticles were sporadically observed on unseeded wafers, as shown by the shaded area in Fig. 2C. However, these densities ranged from no observable diamond nanoparticles to a maximum density that was significantly lower than for adamantane seeding. The baseline density of diamond particles observed with no seeding likely results from the stochastic deposition of diamond nanoparticles that homogeneously nucleate in the plasma phase. This implies that homogeneous nucleation provides some of the inherent experimental variability present in the measured nucleation densities.

Determination of Diamond Growth Densities.

The density of diamond particles was measured via SEM and counted following each growth. Diamond nanoparticles were grown to diameters of ∼0.5–1 μm to enable particle densities to be automatically processed and counted via the NIH ImageJ analysis software. Full details can be found in SI Appendix, section 1.3.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, under Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515. M.A.G. acknowledges the funding provided by the Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials Postdoctoral Fellowship program at Stanford University. C.F. and M.N. acknowledge support of the Flemish Funds for Scientific Research (FWO), Project G0E7417N (Single-Atom Diamond Quantum Probe: Proof-of-Principle Molecular Engineering Methodology and ERANET Project Nanobit). Part of this work was performed at the Stanford Nano Shared Facilities, supported by the National Science Foundation under Award ECCS-1542152.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: nmelosh{at}stanford.edu.
  • Author contributions: Z.-X.S., M.N., and N.A.M. designed research; M.A.G., H.I., P.J.M., V.P., A.T., and C.F. performed research; J.E.D., R.M.K.C., A.A.F., and P.R.S. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; M.A.G., M.N., and N.A.M. analyzed data; and M.A.G. and N.A.M. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1803654115/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gibbs JW,
    2. Smith AW
    (1878) Equilibrium of heterogeneous substances. Trans Conn Acad Arts Sci 3:343–524.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Becker R,
    2. Doring W
    (1935) Kinetic treatment of germ formation in supersaturated vapour. Ann Phys 24:719–752.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Turnbull D,
    2. Fisher JC
    (1949) Rate of nucleation in condensed systems. J Chem Phys 17:71–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Kelton K,
    2. Greer AL
    (2010) Nucleation in Condensed Matter: Applications in Materials and Biology (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
  5. ↵
    1. Wedekind J,
    2. Reguera D
    (2008) Kinetic reconstruction of the free-energy landscape. J Phys Chem B 112:11060–11063.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Lutsko JF,
    2. Durán-Olivencia MA
    (2015) A two-parameter extension of classical nucleation theory. J Phys Condens Matter 27:235101.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Legg BA,
    2. De Yoreo JJ
    (2016) The energetics of prenucleation clusters in lattice solutions. J Chem Phys 145:211921.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. De Yoreo JJ
    (2017) A holistic view of nucleation and self-assembly. MRS Bull 42:525–536.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. De Yoreo JJ, et al.
    (2015) Crystallization by particle attachment in synthetic, biogenic, and geologic environments. Science 349:aaa6760.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Loh ND, et al.
    (2016) Multistep nucleation of nanocrystals in aqueous solution. Nat Chem 9:77–82.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Smeets PJ, et al.
    (2017) A classical view on nonclassical nucleation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:E7882–E7890.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Vekilov PG
    (2010) The two-step mechanism of nucleation of crystals in solution. Nanoscale 2:2346–2357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Sleutel M,
    2. Van Driessche AES
    (2014) Role of clusters in nonclassical nucleation and growth of protein crystals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E546–E553.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Schreiber RE, et al.
    (2017) Real-time molecular scale observation of crystal formation. Nat Chem 9:369–373.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Lee S, et al.
    (2016) Multiple pathways of crystal nucleation in an extremely supersaturated aqueous potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KDP) solution droplet. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:13618–13623.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Williams OA
    (2011) Nanocrystalline diamond. Diam Relat Mater 20:621–640.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Derjaguin BV,
    2. Fedoseev DV
    (1977) The Growth of Diamond and Graphite from the Gas Phase (Nauka, Moscow).
  18. ↵
    1. Angus JC,
    2. Hayman CC
    (1988) Low-pressure, metastable growth of diamond and “diamondlike” phases. Science 241:913–921.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Kruis FE,
    2. Schoonman J,
    3. Scarlett B
    (1994) Homogeneous nucleation of silicon. J Aerosol Sci 25:1291–1304.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Wrachtrup J,
    2. Jelezko F
    (2006) Processing quantum information in diamond. J Phys Condens Matter 18:S807–S824.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Mochalin VN,
    2. Shenderova O,
    3. Ho D,
    4. Gogotsi Y
    (2011) The properties and applications of nanodiamonds. Nat Nanotechnol 7:11–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Gasser U,
    2. Weeks ER,
    3. Schofield A,
    4. Pusey PN,
    5. Weitz DA
    (2001) Real-space imaging of nucleation and growth in colloidal crystallization. Science 292:258–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Tan P,
    2. Xu N,
    3. Xu L
    (2014) Visualizing kinetic pathways of homogeneous nucleation in colloidal crystallization. Nat Phys 10:73–79.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Sleutel M,
    2. Lutsko J,
    3. Van Driessche AES,
    4. Durán-Olivencia MA,
    5. Maes D
    (2014) Observing classical nucleation theory at work by monitoring phase transitions with molecular precision. Nat Commun 5:5598.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Zheng H, et al.
    (2009) Observation of single colloidal platinum nanocrystal growth trajectories. Science 324:1309–1312.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Nielsen MH, et al.
    (2014) Investigating processes of nanocrystal formation and transformation via liquid cell TEM. Microsc Microanal 20:425–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Ross FM
    (2015) Opportunities and challenges in liquid cell electron microscopy. Science 350:aaa9886.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Dahl JE,
    2. Liu SG,
    3. Carlson RMK
    (2003) Isolation and structure of higher diamondoids, nanometer-sized diamond molecules. Science 299:96–99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Fokin AA, et al.
    (2014) Selective preparation of diamondoid phosphonates. J Org Chem 79:5369–5373.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Tzeng Y-K, et al.
    (2017) Vertical-substrate MPCVD epitaxial nanodiamond growth. Nano Lett 17:1489–1495.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Gruen DM
    (1999) Nanocrystalline diamond films. Annu Rev Mater Sci 29:211–259.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Hwang NM,
    2. Hahn JH,
    3. Yoon DY
    (1996) Chemical potential of carbon in the low pressure synthesis of diamond. J Cryst Growth 160:87–97.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Wang CX,
    2. Yang GW
    (2005) Thermodynamics of metastable phase nucleation at the nanoscale. Mater Sci Eng Rep 49:157–202.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Lupi L, et al.
    (2017) Role of stacking disorder in ice nucleation. Nature 551:218–222.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Yau ST,
    2. Vekilov PG
    (2000) Quasi-planar nucleus structure in apoferritin crystallization. Nature 406:494–497.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Badziag P,
    2. Verwoerd WS,
    3. Ellis WP,
    4. Greiner NR
    (1990) Nanometre-sized diamonds are more stable than graphite. Nature 343:244–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Stenberg P, et al.
    (2017) Silicon chemistry in fluorinated chemical vapor deposition of silicon carbide. J Phys Chem C 121:2711–2720.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Hong S,
    2. Chou MY
    (1998) Effect of hydrogen on the surface-energy anisotropy of diamond and silicon. Phys Rev B 57:6262–6265.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Experimental measurement of the diamond nucleation landscape reveals classical and nonclassical features
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Experimental measurement of the diamond nucleation landscape reveals classical and nonclassical features
Matthew A. Gebbie, Hitoshi Ishiwata, Patrick J. McQuade, Vaclav Petrak, Andrew Taylor, Christopher Freiwald, Jeremy E. Dahl, Robert M. K. Carlson, Andrey A. Fokin, Peter R. Schreiner, Zhi-Xun Shen, Milos Nesladek, Nicholas A. Melosh
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2018, 115 (33) 8284-8289; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1803654115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Experimental measurement of the diamond nucleation landscape reveals classical and nonclassical features
Matthew A. Gebbie, Hitoshi Ishiwata, Patrick J. McQuade, Vaclav Petrak, Andrew Taylor, Christopher Freiwald, Jeremy E. Dahl, Robert M. K. Carlson, Andrey A. Fokin, Peter R. Schreiner, Zhi-Xun Shen, Milos Nesladek, Nicholas A. Melosh
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2018, 115 (33) 8284-8289; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1803654115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Chemistry
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (33)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490