Fluorescence and Physico-Chemical Properties of Hydrogenated Detonation Nanodiamonds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogenated detonation nanodiamonds are of great interest for emerging applications in areas from biology and medicine to lubrication. Here, we compare the two main hydrogenation techniques—annealing in hydrogen and plasma-assisted hydrogenation—for the creation of detonation nanodiamonds with a hydrogen terminated surface from the same starting material. Synchrotron-based soft X-ray spectroscopy, infrared absorption spectroscopy, and electron energy loss spectroscopy were employed to quantify diamond and non-diamond carbon contents and determine the surface chemistries of all samples. Dynamic light scattering was used to study the particles’ colloidal properties in water. For the first time, steady-state and time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy analysis at temperatures from room temperature down to 10 K was performed to investigate the particles’ fluorescence properties. Our results show that both hydrogenation techniques produce hydrogenated detonation nanodiamonds with overall similar physico-chemical and fluorescence properties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".