“…When the diffusion layer thickness ($14 mm here) is greater than the height of the stripes (2 mm here, macroprofile), due to local variations of the diffusion layer thickness, metal should be preferentially deposited at the top of the stripes [41]. We cannot explain this observation at this time.…”
Section: Effect Of Different Polishing Level On Deposit Dispersionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Among other effects, this could be attributed to the electrodeposition mode and the cathodic current employed; with voltammetry, electrodeposition is conducted under continuous evolution of the applied voltage and the resulting current (which reached its limiting value), while galvanostatic electrolyses carried out with a current close (90%) to the limiting current. As often observed in galvanostatic electrodeposition, electrodeposit tends to be dendritic/powdery when applied current is equal to, or higher than the limiting current ( [40][41][42]). Even when the applied current is just below the limiting current, a 'less rough' and 'less dendritic' electrodeposit morphology could be obtained [41,42].…”
Section: Iron Electrodeposits Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As often observed in galvanostatic electrodeposition, electrodeposit tends to be dendritic/powdery when applied current is equal to, or higher than the limiting current ( [40][41][42]). Even when the applied current is just below the limiting current, a 'less rough' and 'less dendritic' electrodeposit morphology could be obtained [41,42].…”
Section: Iron Electrodeposits Morphologymentioning
International audienceThis study relates the sonoelectrochemical production of metallic particles and nanoparticles. The emphasis is on the influence of electrode material and roughness on the morphology of iron electrodeposits and their dispersion from the electrode by ultrasonification. Ultrasonification is either applied during cyclic voltammetries with solution stirring or after galvanostatic iron electrodeposition; no dispersion was observed when using a gold electrode, whereas dispersion was always observed when using vitreous carbon (VC) substrates. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging of the electrodeposits shows higher iron coverage on gold than on VC electrodes. Iron spreads more on gold than on VC. The values of both the interfacial energy of the iron/electrode interface and the work of adhesion of iron on the electrode are in agreement with the previous observations. Dispersion kinetics on VC were found to be dependent on the electrode surface roughness. Results suggest that dispersion follows a first order kinetics, which is coherent with the constant action of cavitation bubbles in the vicinity of the electrode surface. Enhancement of mass-transfer by ultrasound has also been observed
“…When the diffusion layer thickness ($14 mm here) is greater than the height of the stripes (2 mm here, macroprofile), due to local variations of the diffusion layer thickness, metal should be preferentially deposited at the top of the stripes [41]. We cannot explain this observation at this time.…”
Section: Effect Of Different Polishing Level On Deposit Dispersionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Among other effects, this could be attributed to the electrodeposition mode and the cathodic current employed; with voltammetry, electrodeposition is conducted under continuous evolution of the applied voltage and the resulting current (which reached its limiting value), while galvanostatic electrolyses carried out with a current close (90%) to the limiting current. As often observed in galvanostatic electrodeposition, electrodeposit tends to be dendritic/powdery when applied current is equal to, or higher than the limiting current ( [40][41][42]). Even when the applied current is just below the limiting current, a 'less rough' and 'less dendritic' electrodeposit morphology could be obtained [41,42].…”
Section: Iron Electrodeposits Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As often observed in galvanostatic electrodeposition, electrodeposit tends to be dendritic/powdery when applied current is equal to, or higher than the limiting current ( [40][41][42]). Even when the applied current is just below the limiting current, a 'less rough' and 'less dendritic' electrodeposit morphology could be obtained [41,42].…”
Section: Iron Electrodeposits Morphologymentioning
International audienceThis study relates the sonoelectrochemical production of metallic particles and nanoparticles. The emphasis is on the influence of electrode material and roughness on the morphology of iron electrodeposits and their dispersion from the electrode by ultrasonification. Ultrasonification is either applied during cyclic voltammetries with solution stirring or after galvanostatic iron electrodeposition; no dispersion was observed when using a gold electrode, whereas dispersion was always observed when using vitreous carbon (VC) substrates. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging of the electrodeposits shows higher iron coverage on gold than on VC electrodes. Iron spreads more on gold than on VC. The values of both the interfacial energy of the iron/electrode interface and the work of adhesion of iron on the electrode are in agreement with the previous observations. Dispersion kinetics on VC were found to be dependent on the electrode surface roughness. Results suggest that dispersion follows a first order kinetics, which is coherent with the constant action of cavitation bubbles in the vicinity of the electrode surface. Enhancement of mass-transfer by ultrasound has also been observed
“…Quantifying surface properties, in particular roughness, has been investigated in some detail, using a variety of methods [3,5,6, 7J. There are some fundamental problems associated with these methods [4J and in most cases the measure of surface roughness depends on the method used to obtain that measure and the scale at which the investigation is conducted.…”
Section: Surface Roughness and Its Measurementmentioning
“…Many metals are deposit in a very rough or powdery form 2 , when electroplating is carried out at the limiting current density. The possibility of preventing powder formation at the limiting current by means of a suitable additive of great interest and represent a significant activity in electroplating 3 .…”
Limiting currents were measured for the electroplating of horizontal steel cylinders in unstirred CuSO4 solutions. Variables studied were CuSO4 concentration, cylinder diameter and temperature. The limiting current was found to increase with CuSO4 concentration over the concentration range from 0.01 to 0.2 M. Cylinder diameter was found to have no effect on the limiting current within the range studied (0.8-3.8 cm diameter). The effect of temperature on the limiting current was found to obey Arrhenius equation. The activation energy for electrodeposition was found to be 15.12-32.5 kJ mol-1. Results were explained in the light of the theory of electrochemical mass transfer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.