4.5 Article

Effect of Latent Heat in Boiling Water on the Synthesis of Gold Nanoparticles of Different Sizes by using the Turkevich Method

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 447-454

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201402648

关键词

gold; materials science; nanoparticles; latent heat; Turkevich method

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51172126, 21473105, 51002086, 51227002, 51272129]
  2. 973 program [2010CB630702]
  3. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation [ZR2010 M006]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-10-0553]
  5. Independent Innovation Foundation of Shandong University [2010 JQ013]
  6. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry
  7. Australian Research Council [DP 110104179, DP 120102959]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Turkevich method, involving the reduction of HAuCl4 with citrate in boiling water, allows the facile production of monodisperse, quasispherical gold nanoparticles (AuNPs). Although, it is well-known that the size of the AuNPs obtained with the same recipe vary slightly (as little as approximately 4 nm), but noticeably, from one report to another, it has rarely been studied. The present work demonstrates that this size variation can be reconciled by the small, but noticeable, effect that the latent heat in boiling water has on the size of the AuNPs obtained by using the Turkevich method. The increase in latent heat during water boiling caused an approximately 3 nm reduction in the size of the as-prepared AuNPs; this reduction in size is mainly a result of accelerated nucleation driven by the extra heat. It was further demonstrated that, the heating temperature can be utilized as an additional measure to adjust the growth rate of AuNPs during the reduction of HAuCl4 with citrate in boiling water. Therefore, the latent heat of boiling solvents may provide one way to control nucleation and growth in the synthesis of monodisperse nanoparticles.

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

4.5
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