Electrochemical removal of anodic aluminium oxide templates for the production of phase-pure cuprous oxide nanorods for antimicrobial surfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial surfaces are ones that incapacitate or kill pathogens landing on them, which could allow for self-sanitising surfaces for hospitals or implants, ensuring healthier stays and procedures. Cuprous compounds such as Cu2O are especially effective at incapacitating both viruses and bacteria, and nanorod arrays have been shown to prevent the adhesion of pathogens and mechanically deform bacteria to the point that their cell walls rupture. A Cu2O nanorod array should therefore allow for the exploitation of both of these effects. In the present work, an electrochemical method is introduced, where Cu2O nanorods formed in a substrate-supported anodic aluminium oxide (AAO) template are held at a stable electrochemical potential throughout the removal of the AAO template. This avoids the partial reduction of the nanorods from Cu2O to Cu that was observed during chemical removal of the template, which was attributed to the presence of residual aluminium from the template fabrication process that reacts with the etchant and lowers the electrochemical potential of the nanorods to a value that favours reduction. Using the electrochemical removal method, the reliable production of phase-pure, free-standing, crystalline Cu2O nanorod arrays on ITO/glass substrates is demonstrated. This simple method is compatible with nanorod arrays of any size.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it