4.6 Article

Gold Nanowire Networks: Synthesis, Characterization, and Catalytic Activity

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 3906-3913

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la104092b

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal [SFRH/BPD/39294/2007]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/39294/2007] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gold nanowire networks (AuNWNs) with average widths of 17.74 nm (AuNWN1) or 23.54 nm (AuNWN2) were synthesized by direct reduction of HAuCl4 with sodium borohydride powder in deep eutectic solvents, such as ethaline or reline, at 40 degrees C. Their width and length were dependent on the type of solvent and the NaBH4/HAuCl4 molar ratio (32 in ethaline and 5.2 in reline). High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) analysis of the gold nanowire networks showed clear lattice fringes of polycrystalline nanopowder of d = 2.36, 2.04, 1.44, and 1.23 angstrom corresponding to the (111), (200), (220), or (311) crystallographic planes of face centered cubic gold. The purified AuNWNs were used as catalysts for the chemical reduction of p-nitroaniline to diaminophenylene with sodium borohydride in aqueous solution. The reaction was monitored in real time by UV-vis spectroscopy. The results show that the reduction process is six times faster in the presence of gold nanowire networks stabilized by urea from the reline (AuNWN2) than in the presence of gold nanowire networks stabilized by ethylene glycol from ethaline (AuNWN1). This is due to a higher number of corners and edges on the gold nanowires synthesized in reline than on those synthesized in ethaline as proven by X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns recorded for both types of gold nanowire networks. Nevertheless, both types of nanomaterials determined short times of reaction and high conversion of p-nitroaniline to diaminophenylene. These gold nanomaterials represent a new addition to a new generation of catalysts: gold based catalysts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据