4.6 Article

Quantifying the removal of stabilizing thiolates from gold nanoparticles on different carbon supports and the effect on their electrochemical properties

Journal

NANOSCALE ADVANCES
Volume 4, Issue 23, Pages 5154-5163

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2na00561a

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study investigated methods for removing stabilizers to improve the electrochemical performance of gold nanoparticles. The effects of several treatment methods on the gold particles were experimentally verified, highlighting the importance of quantitatively validating the success of post-treatment procedures.
Gold nanoparticles <10 nm in size are typically prepared using stabilizing agents, e.g. thiolates. Often standard recipes from literature are used to presumably remove these stabilisers to liberate the surface, e.g. for catalytic or electrocatalytic applications, however the success of these procedures is often not verified. In this work, thiolate-stabilised AuNPs of ca. 2 nm in size were synthesized and supported onto three different carbon supports, resulting in loadings from 15 to 25 wt% Au. These materials were post treated using three different methods in varying gas atmospheres to remove the stabilizing agent and to liberate the surface for electrochemical applications. Using thermogravimetry - mass spectroscopy (TG-MS), the amount of removed stabilizer was determined to be up to 95%. Identical location scanning transmission electron microscopy (il-(S)TEM) measurments revealed moderate particle growth but a stable support during the treatments, the latter was also confirmed by Raman spectroscopy. All treatments significantly improved the electrochemically accessible gold surface. In general, the results presented here point out the importance of quantitatively verifying the success of any catalyst post treatment with the aim of stabilizer removal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available