PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16354043

Electronic structure differences in ZrO2 vs HfO2.

Abstract

Although ZrO2 and HfO2 are, for the most part, quite similar chemically, subtle differences in their electronic structures appear to be responsible for differing MO2/Si (M = Zr, Hf) interface stabilities. To shed light on the electronic structure differences between ZrO2 and HfO2, we have conducted joint experimental and theoretical studies. Because molecular electron affinities are a sensitive probe of electronic structure, we have measured them by conducting photoelectron spectroscopic experiments on ZrO2(-) and HfO2(-). The adiabatic electron affinity of HfO2 was determined to be 2.14 +/- 0.03 eV, and that of ZrO2 was determined to be 1.64 +/- 0.03 eV. Concurrently, advanced electronic structure calculations were conducted to determine electron affinities, vibrational frequencies, and geometries of these systems. The calculated CCSD(T) electron affinities of HfO2 and ZrO2 were found to be 2.05 and 1.62 eV, respectively. The molecular results confirm earlier predictions from solid state calculations that HfO2 is more ionic than ZrO2. The excess electron in MO2(-) occupies an sd-type hybrid orbital localized on the M atom (M = Zr, Hf). The structural parameters of ZrO2 and HfO2 and their vibrational frequencies were found to be very similar. Upon the excess electron attachment, the M-O bond length increases by ca. 0.04 A, the OMO angle increases by 2-4 degrees, and frequencies of all vibrational modes become smaller, with the stretching modes being shifted by 30-50 cm(-1) and the bending mode by 15-25 cm(-1). Together, these studies unveil significant differences in the electronic structures of ZrO2 and HfO2 but not in their structural or vibrational characteristics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weijun Zheng, Kit H Bowen, Jun Li, Iwona Dabkowska, Maciej Gutowski. 2005-12-22. Electronic structure differences in ZrO2 vs HfO2.. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp053593e

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗