Electrochemical nucleation: comparison test of classical and atomistic nucleation models

Abstract

Classical and atomistic nucleation models have been tested in several aqueous systems dealing with electrocrystallization. A lot of reported experimental nucleation data have been used, and in a wide range of overpotentials. The critical nucleus size has been calculated in those cases not reported in the original work, and the results obtained with the classical and atomistic models have been tabulated, compared and discussed. Small values for the critical nucleus size occur in most of the systems.

Discovering and Modelling the Wave-Like Shapes on the Surface of Metal Deposits, being Electrodeposited under the Force Impact

“…It should be noted that the above data contradict the existing concepts about the electrochemical phase formation of metals and alloys [4][5][6][7][8]. According to existing concepts, developed in recent publications [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], the phase formation of an electrodeposited metal occurs by way of 'incorporating' into its crystal lattice of ions from an aqueous solution or atoms formed on its surface.…”

Electrochemical Polymorphic Phase Formation in Metals

“…Developing views are fundamentally different from the current concepts, according to which electrochemical phase formation in metals occurs by "incorporation" or "embedding" of ions from the water solution or of atoms (adatoms or adions) evolved at deposit surface into the deposit crystal lattice [15][16][17]. Despite the lack of satisfactory experimental evidence for the validity of these concepts, they remain the main ones for theoretical discussion of the issues of electrochemical phase formation [18][19][20][21][22]. Furthermore, these concepts have received theoretical development in recent publications on the electrochemical phase formation in metals and alloys [23][24][25][26][27].…”

Morphological Evolution of Nanocluster Aggregates and Single Crystals in Alkaline Zinc Electrodeposition

“…Although the atomistic theory is in good agreement with potentiostatic current transient data, , its assumptions have not yet been validated by direct nanoscale microscopic observations. Holzle et al and Torrent-Burgues compared the steady-state nucleation rates to the atomistic and Volmer–Weber models. Although the number of atoms in the critical cluster was determined, the role of cluster interactions in morphological growth was not addressed.…”