[Study of lanthanide complexes-doped silica gels and the Co-fluorescence effect by photoacoustic spectroscopy in situ].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silica matrices, due to their good optical, thermal and chemical properties, are suitable candidates for the hosts of luminescent lanthanide complexes. However, lanthanide complexes would be unstable in the most common sol-gel precursor solution. It is important to study the coordination environment of lanthanide ions and the formation of lanthanide complexes in silica gels. In the present work, lanthanide complexes Ln(Sal)3 x H2O(Ln3+:La3+, Nd3+ and Tb3+; Sal:salicylic acid) were incorporated into silica gels via a sol-gel process. PA technique was firstly used to monitor the formation of lanthanide complexes in silica gels. Upon heat treatment at 110 degrees C, PA intensity of the ligand increased for Tb3+, La3+ and Nd3+ complexes in silica gels, respectively, while this difference could not be observed for the wet gels (samples without heat treatment). By comparison with fluorescence spectra, experimental data indicate that lanthanide complexes decompose in wet gels. The formation of lanthanide complexes in silica gels is discussed from two aspects: radiative and nonradiative processes. Co-luminescence effect was found for lanthanide complexes with aromatic carboxylic acid doped silica gels for the first time. For Tb0.8 Ln0.2 (Sal)3 x H2O (Ln3+:Gd3+ or Nd3+)-doped silica gel, the addition of Gd3+ increased the luminescence efficiency of Tb3+, while the luminescence of Tb3+ was quenched remarkably with the addition of Nd3+. Possible mechanism behind the co-luminescence phenomena of lanthanide complexes-doped silica gels is discussed.
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".