pH study of zinc oxide nanorods grown on indium tin oxide coated substrate<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled growth of ZnO nanorods on various substrates is of great interest in photonic and electronic device applications. Also of interest is increasing the optical activity of zinc oxide nanorods in the visible spectrum. In this study, we report pH dependence for the morphology and photoluminescence of aligned ZnO nanorods grown on an indium tin oxide (ITO) coated glass substrate deposited by a wet chemical bath deposition method. The ZnO nanorods were grown by a chemical bath deposition technique using equimolar ratios of zinc (II) nitrate and hexamethylenetetramine in solution at 95 °C. The pH of the reaction solution prior to oven heating was varied from pH 5 to 10.6. Surface properties of the ZnO nanorods on ITO substrates were studied using scanning electron microscopy and photoluminescence spectroscopy. We also compared the use of NaOH to adjust the pH with the use of NH 4 OH, the latter necessary at higher pH due to the relative insolubility of zinc. It was found that the size of the nanorods can vary twofold with pH and the choice of base. Uniformity of coverage is also significantly dependent upon these variables and will be discussed as it relates to solubility and crystal growth. It was also found that the intensity of the photoluminescence in the visible range is pH dependent. For example, the intensity of luminescence at 550 nm for ZnO nanorods grown at pH 7 using NH 4 OH is 532% of the corresponding emission for a sample prepared at pH 5.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".