TABLE OF CONTENTS The review of different chemical (wet) technologies for the formation of nanostructured materials shows a growing interest in these methods by industry. Wet technologies offer cost-effective alternatives, and become competitive with such traditional solid-state methods as evaporation, sputtering, chemical and physical vapor deposition, and molecular beam epitaxy. For many applications (e.g., ceramic materials processing), chemical routes are already playing the major role in industry.
The properties of the nanostructured materials, produced by different chemical methods, vary greatly. Table 2.3 is an attempt to classify these chemical technologies, and to compare the main features of the thin films produced.
| Technology | Adhesion | Thermal Stability | Mechanical Properties | Thickness Precision | Level of Ordering | Industrial Compatibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electro-deposition | Good | High (material depending) | Reasonable | Rather poor (tens of nanometers) | Polycrystalline | Very good |
| Sol-gel | Good | High (material depending) | Good | Rather poor (tens of nanometers) | Amorph. or polycrystalline | Very good |
| Chemical self-assembly | Strong | Rather poor and depends on organic materials used | Reasonable | Very high (tenths of nanometer range) | High level 2D order | Reasonable |
| Electrostatic (or Polyelectrolyte) self-assembly | Strong | Rather poor and depends on the polyelectrolyte used | Reasonable | High (nanometer range) | Good layer-by-layer order | Reasonable |
| Langmuir-Blodgett | Poor | Poor | Poor | Very high (tenths of nanometers) | High level of layer-by-layer order | Poor (practically incompatible) |
| Spin coating | Poor | Poor | Poor | Rather poor (tens of nanometers) | Amorph. or polycrystalline | Very good |
This classification can be helpful in choosing the right deposition technique for a certain material and for particular application. As...
