↓ Skip to main content

Substitutional Doping for Aluminosilicate Mineral and Superior Water Splitting Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Discover Nano, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Substitutional Doping for Aluminosilicate Mineral and Superior Water Splitting Performance
Published in
Discover Nano, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s11671-017-2192-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi Zhang, Liangjie Fu, Zhan Shu, Huaming Yang, Aidong Tang, Tao Jiang

Abstract

Substitutional doping is a strategy in which atomic impurities are optionally added to a host material to promote its properties, while the geometric and electronic structure evolution of natural nanoclay mineral upon substitutional metal doping is still ambiguous. This paper first designed an efficient lanthanum (La) doping strategy for nanotubular clay (halloysite nanotube, HNT) through the dynamic equilibrium of a substitutional atom in the presence of saturated AlCl3 solution, and systematic characterization of the samples was performed. Further density functional theory (DFT) calculations were carried out to reveal the geometric and electronic structure evolution upon metal doping, as well as to verify the atom-level effect of the La doping. The CdS loading and its corresponding water splitting performance could demonstrate the effect of La doping. CdS nanoparticles (11 wt.%) were uniformly deposited on the surface of La-doped halloysite nanotube (La-HNT) with the average size of 5 nm, and the notable photocatalytic hydrogen evolution rate of CdS/La-HNT reached up to 47.5 μmol/h. The results could provide a new strategy for metal ion doping and constructive insight into the substitutional doping mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 16 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 6 20%
Materials Science 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Energy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Discover Nano
#542
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,949
of 324,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Discover Nano
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.