One-Step, Cooperative Deposition of Au–Ni Alloy Nanoparticles on a Si Substrate: “Catalytic” Growth Mechanism in an Aqueous Medium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gold–nickel alloy nanoparticles are prepared on a H-terminated Si(100) substrate by a simple, one-step cooperative electrochemical deposition process at room temperature. The spherical alloy nanoparticles, with an average diameter of 6–12 nm, are obtained by amperometry at −0.8 V (with respect to a Ag/AgCl reference electrode) for 2–10 s in an aqueous solution of 0.05 mM AuCl 3, 5 mM NiCl 2, and 100 mM NaClO 4 . Depth-profiling X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy reveals interesting evolution in Au 4f or/and Ni 2p binding energy shifts with respect to sputtering depth, which supports the formation of a Au–Ni alloy during the codeposition via a new “catalytic” growth mechanism. In particular, Au nanocrystallites that are deposited first onto the substrate act as a catalyst to initiate the subsequent Ni deposition. Codeposition of Au and Ni then occurs simultaneously, and the presence of Au and Ni nanodeposits further promotes the growth of each other, producing alloy nanoparticles. The glancing-incidence X-ray diffraction pattern of the new Au–Ni nanoparticles exhibits a small shift to larger 2θ, corresponding to smaller lattice parameters, than pristine Au nanoparticles, confirming the alloy formation. The Au–Ni alloy formation by coelectrochemical deposition promises potential applications in designing new catalysts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".