Nanostructured Zinc Electrodeposited from Protic Ionic Liquids: Comparison with Zinc Aqueous Electrodeposition Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zinc electrodepositon is one of the more important electrochemical process for surface treatment because of its application in anticorrosion protection and also as electrode material in zinc batteries. The main limitation of the electrodepositon of zinc from acidic or basic solutions in aqueous media, in addition to the very negative potential needed to carry out the electrodeposition, is associated to the simultaneous hydrogen evolucion reaction (HER) limiting the farad¡c efficiency of the electrochemical process. The HER has also a direct effect on the nucleation and on the electrocrystallization of zinc with some negative effects on the physical and structural proporties of zinc electrodeposits obtained from these solution (e.g. (poor adhesion, inhomogeneous deposits, etc). In this work the electrodeposition processes of zinc from protic ionic liquids is studied and compared with results of electrodeposition from aqueous solution in order to determine the avantages of electrodeposition from ionic liquids. Results show that in protic carboxylated ionic liquids, as ethanolammonium propionate, homogeneous electrodeposits of pure metallic zinc are obtained, with a narrow distribution of grain size in the range of 50-70nm, contrariously to electrodeposits obtained from aqueos solutions with grain sizes from 20 to 100nm. In addition, differences in the nucleation-electrocrystallization mechanism and on the electrodeposition rate are observed and they are dependent on the nature of the nature of the solvent. Results allow to conclude that zinc electrodeposits continous, homogeneous and with a well controlled grain sizes can be obtained from protic ionic liquids. These results allow to envisage that these deposits can be more effective for anticorrosion protection since this property is dependent on the homogeneity and contoinuity of an electrodeposit. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The financial support provided by CONACYT (México), project Fondo Sectorial SEP-CONACYT CB 2011 168032 and The Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) are gratefully acknowledged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".