MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925118118 · doi:10.1166/jnn.2019.16372

Tuning of Morphology and Stability of Gold Nanostars Through pH Adjustment

2019· article· en· W2925118118 on OpenAlexaff
R M Piragash Kumar, Simona Bǎdilescu, Muthukumaran Packirisamy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMorphology (biology)Chemical engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the morphology and stability of gold nanostars (AuNSs) were investigated under different pH environments. The surface morphologies and plasmonic properties were observed for nanostars (NSs) deposited on glass substrates, using SEM and ultraviolet and visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy. It is found that gold nanostars can be readily stabilized just by adjusting the initial pH condition of the growth solution. The particle size distribution of gold nanostars under different pH environments has been investigated using UV-Vis spectroscopy and found to be highly dependent on pH. At the optimal pH of 11, the gold nanostars are highly monodisperse, they have longer branches and the Au Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance band (LSPR) at 720 nm. For other pH conditions, particles are non-uniform and polydisperse, showing a red-shift of the plasmon peak due to aggregation and a large particle size distribution. Time-dependent UV-Vis spectra studies hypothesize the pH dependent stabilization mechanism, where the formation and stabilization of AuNS were affected greatly by the aggregation induced by pH of the growth solution. The information obtained in this study can be used to design stable gold nanostars with longer shelf life for biosensing applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nanoscience and NanotechnologySame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207