Oxidation of Gold Nanoparticles by Au(III) Complexes in Toluene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid, stoichiometric oxidation of gold nanoparticles by tetraalkylammonium and tetraalkylphosphonium Au(III) complexes in toluene is reported here. Nanoparticle oxidation proceeds via a comproportionation mechanism and generates stable Au(I) complexes of the ammonium and phosphonium cations used. These reactions are studied for several organo-soluble nanoparticle systems, employing different cations and halides in the Au(III) oxidant complex, and a mechanism for the comproportionation reaction is proposed. It is demonstrated that Au nanorods stabilized in toluene can be progressively “sculpted” by Au(III) complexes. Measurement artifacts caused by the reduction of Au(I) and Au(III) species during conventional TEM imaging are also demonstrated and discussed. The results presented here provide insight into a host of issues in the chemistry of Au nanoparticles: nanoparticle oxidation, reduction of Au(III) species to Au(0) nanoparticles, galvanic replacement reactions using Au(III), and sample changes induced by TEM imaging. The oxidation of Au nanoparticles by Au(III) complexes in nonpolar solvents is expected to be a valuable new tool for nanoparticle sculpting, dissolution of nanogold templates, Au content determination, ligand removal from nanoparticles, nanoparticle purification, and Au recovery processes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".