MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161897995 · doi:10.1021/cg8000043

Dependence of Crystal Growth of Gold Nanoparticles on the Capping Behavior of Surfactant at Ambient Conditions

2008· article· en· W2161897995 on OpenAlexaff
Mandeep Singh Bakshi, Shweta Sachar, Gurpreet Kaur, Poonam Bhandari, Gurinder Kaur, Mark C. Biesinger, Fred Possmayer, Nils O. Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystal Growth & Design · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanorodPulmonary surfactantAdsorptionChemical engineeringNanoparticleX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyMaterials scienceAqueous solutionSteric effectsCrystal (programming language)Phase (matter)NanotechnologyCrystallographyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A seed-mediated approach was applied to synthesize gold (Au) nanoparticles (NP) by using twin tail alkylammonium cationic surfactants such as 12-6-12 and 12-0-12 as capping agents in aqueous phase at ambient conditions. The growth of Au NP was monitored by changing the amount of seed. Spherical NP (10–50nm) and nanorods (aspect ratio = 2–3) were obtained in the presence of 12-6-12 as capping agent; their shape and size systematically deformed because of anisotropic growth with a decrease in the amount of seed. In contrast, when 12-0-12 was used as a capping agent, no anisotropic growth was observed. An effective liquid/solid interfacial adsorption of 12-0-12 prevented anisotropic growth which led to precise morphologies. This was not observed in the case of 12-6-12 because of the presence of a spacer which restricted an effective interfacial adsorption because of the steric factors. XPS and FTIR studies clearly indicated the presence of a surfactant film on the surface of Au NP, while XRD analysis demonstrated a difference in the preferential adsorption of 12-6-12 and 12-0-12 at different crystal planes of fcc geometry which resulted in a difference in their capping behaviors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystal Growth & DesignSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207