Electrodeposition and Growth Mechanism of Copper Sulfide Nanowires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thiourea (TU) is widely used as a corrosion inhibitor or as an additive in metal (e.g., copper) electroplating baths. TU facilitates the formation of uniform deposits with high brightness. In this study pertaining to the electrosynthesis of copper sulfide nanowires from dilute Cu 2+ containing solution, TU was used as a copper ion complexing agent and sulfur source. Nanowires with various diameters and lengths were obtained via single-step pulsed potential electrodeposition. The electrodeposition time can be used to control the diameter of the electrodeposited nanowires to within the range of 30−100 nm. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analyses showed that nanowires are formed from covellite (CuS) and djurleite (Cu 1.94 S). The crystal structures of these phases were observed by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). Cyclic voltammetry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy have been applied to analyze the growth process of the nanowires. The formation of complexes of copper ions and TU was found to be a key factor in the nanowire growth process. A diffusion-controlled growth mechanism is proposed to interpret the growth behavior of the nanowires and the change in the product morphology. According to the proposed mechanism, during the cathodic pulses, copper and copper sulfide deposits, and afterward, during the anodic pulses, the deposited copper electrochemically dissolves. Dissolution of copper during the anodic pulses is shown to inhibit the quasi-anomalous codeposition of copper sulfide and copper.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".