AFM-IR and s-SNOM-IR measurements of chemically addressable monolayers on Au nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of catalysts depends on their nanoscale properties, and local variations in structure and composition can have a dramatic impact on the catalytic reactivity. Therefore, probing the localized reactivity of catalytic surfaces using high spatial resolution vibrational spectroscopy, such as infrared (IR) nanospectroscopy and tip-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, is essential for mapping their reactivity pattern. Two fundamentally different scanning probe IR nanospectroscopy techniques, namely, scattering-type scanning near-field optical microscopy (s-SNOM) and atomic force microscopy-infrared spectroscopy (AFM-IR), provide the capabilities for mapping the reactivity pattern of catalytic surfaces with a spatial resolution of ∼20 nm. Herein, we compare these two techniques with regard to their applicability for probing the vibrational signature of reactive molecules on catalytic nanoparticles. For this purpose, we use chemically addressable self-assembled molecules on Au nanoparticles as model systems. We identified significant spectral differences depending on the measurement technique, which originate from the fundamentally different working principles of the applied methods. While AFM-IR spectra provided information from all the molecules that were positioned underneath the tip, the s-SNOM spectra were more orientation-sensitive. Due to its field-enhancement factor, the s-SNOM spectra showed higher vibrational signals for dipoles that were perpendicularly oriented to the surface. The s-SNOM sensitivity to the molecular orientation influenced the amplitude, position, and signal-to-noise ratio of the collected spectra. Ensemble-based IR measurements verified that differences in the localized IR spectra stem from the enhanced sensitivity of s-SNOM measurements to the adsorption geometry of the probed molecules.
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 | 0.001 | 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".