Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Silver Electrodeposition from Ag/AgCl Electrodes: Implications for Nanoscience

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Ag/AgCl electrodes dissolve in chloride-rich solutions and electrodeposit silver onto graphene, which the paper argues explains recently reported 'ionic Coulomb drag' currents as an electrochemical artifact rather than a genuine…

desk verdict Solid demonstration of Ag/AgCl contamination, but the paper oversells the exclusivity claim against ionic Coulomb drag; the contamination warning stands, the drag reinterpretation needs more work. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16597 v1 pith:5SCRGMG2 submitted 2025-05-22 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.chem-ph

Chuhongxu Chen , Ziwei Wang , Guilin Chen , Zhijia Zhang , Zakhar Bedran , Stephen Tipper , Pablo D{i}az-Nunez , Ivan Timokhin
show 2 more authors
Artem Mishchenko Qian Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.chem-ph
keywords silverelectrodepositionAg/AgClelectrodechloridecomplexesgrapheneelectrochemistryionicCoulombdragnanofluidicscontaminationcyclicvoltammetrysurface-enhancedRamanscattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that Ag/AgCl reference electrodes, long assumed to be inert in chloride-rich solutions, actually dissolve through formation of soluble silver-chloride complexes and can electrodeposit silver onto nearby conductive surfaces such as graphene. It demonstrates this directly with optical microscopy, EDX, Raman spectroscopy, cyclic voltammetry, and repeated measurements on many devices. If true, the recently reported "ionic flow-induced current in graphene" is not ionic Coulomb drag but an electrochemical artifact: the measurement circuit supplies electrons for silver reduction, and uneven deposition produces a net current in graphene. This matters for nanofluidics and biosensing, where unintentional silver contamination can mimic or mask genuine signals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the silver-chloride complex [AgCl_{n+1}]^{n-}, whose formation in $Cl^{{-}}$-rich solutions raises AgCl solubility by orders of magnitude beyond the Ksp estimate. This complex transports silver from the electrode into solution; an applied bias reduces it onto graphene; and the graphene-connected sourcemeter supplies or withdraws electrons, so the measured graphene current tracks the asymmetry of silver deposition rather than any direct momentum transfer from moving ions.

What would settle it

Measure dissolved silver concentration in the electrolyte directly during a drag experiment and compare the integrated silver deposition charge with the graphene current; if no silver is detected at the required concentration, or if the graphene current persists when silver-free reference electrodes are used, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electronic current detected in graphene in these experiments is solely due to silver electrodeposition rather than Coulomb drag. The authors show that AgCl dissolution in KCl solution produces [AgCl_{n+1}]^{n-} complexes, raising silver solubility far above the common-ion prediction, and that under a bias between two Ag/AgCl electrodes silver is deposited onto graphene while the sourcemeter connected to graphene acts as an electron source or sink. Because deposition is uneven, a net nA-level current appears in graphene, and its sign varies from device to device; this matches the authors' observation that only about half of their devices show the sign-reversed current previously attributed to ionic Coulomb drag.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the actual concentration of dissolved silver complexes in the 1 M KCl cell being high enough to sustain the observed electrodeposition and graphene currents, and this concentration is inferred from literature solubility values rather than measured in the authors' own cell.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Claims of ionic Coulomb drag in graphene must control for silver contamination, for example by using silver-free electrodes or leak-free junctions.
  • Nanofluidic and biosensing experiments using Ag/AgCl electrodes may contain hidden silver deposits that affect local electrostatics, surface-enhanced Raman signals, and device integrity.
  • The sign and magnitude of 'drag-like' currents become diagnostic: if they vary randomly across nominally identical devices, an electrochemical origin should be suspected.
  • Leak-free reference junctions or alternative reference electrodes should become standard practice in small-volume, chloride-rich systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would measure dissolved silver concentration in the 1 M KCl cell during operation; if the actual concentration is far below the level needed to sustain the observed nA currents, the electrodeposition explanation would weaken.
  • If the interpretation is right, the same artifact should appear with any metal electrode whose chloride or oxide dissolves in the electrolyte, not just silver, predicting similar false 'drag' signals in other metal-electrode systems.
  • The uneven-deposition model predicts that deliberately seeding one region of graphene with silver should bias the sign of the measured current, a testable consequence not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that Ag/AgCl electrodes in Cl-rich solutions release silver complexes that electrodeposit on graphene, and it proposes that this electrochemical contamination, rather than ionic Coulomb drag, explains the recently reported ionic-flow-induced current in graphene. The authors support the deposition claim with optical microscopy, SEM, EDX, Raman spectroscopy, and cyclic voltammetry data, including a commercial-electrode control and deposition on both CVD and exfoliated graphene. They then reinterpret the sign-reversed nA-level graphene current observed during ionic flow as an electrodeposition artifact.

Significance. If the central reinterpretation were quantitatively established, the paper would be an important caution for nanofluidic and 2D-membrane experiments using Ag/AgCl electrodes. The deposition phenomenology is convincingly documented: the EDX silver signal, the 233 cm-1 Raman band, the CV redox peaks, and the commercial-electrode control are mutually consistent. However, the paper's exclusivity claim about the origin of the graphene current goes beyond what the data demonstrate. The proposed mechanism is qualitative, no control experiment is provided, and the dissolved silver concentration in the 1 M KCl cell is not measured. The contribution is therefore best regarded as a valuable identification of a contamination pathway plus a hypothesis about its relevance to ionic Coulomb drag experiments, rather than a closed quantitative case.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (after Fig. 3a), Fig. 3b] The statement that the electronic current 'is solely due to silver deposition rather than Coulomb drag' is the paper's load-bearing claim, but it is supported only by a qualitative sketch in Fig. 3b. The authors do not provide an electrostatic or electrochemical model that predicts the magnitude or sign of the graphene current from a given spatial distribution of deposited silver, nor do they show a time-resolved correlation between deposition events and the measured I_gr. As it stands, the data in Fig. 3a and Fig. S6 can demonstrate that deposition occurs, but they cannot exclude comparable contributions from other mechanisms; the exclusivity claim therefore needs either a quantitative model or a control experiment (for example, a cell with inert electrodes or with the silver source removed).
  2. [Section II, solubility discussion (ref. 30)] The dissolved-silver premise is inferred from literature rather than measured. The paper cites AgCl solubility up to 2.4e-3 M in 3 M KCl (ref. 30) and applies this reasoning to a 1 M KCl cell, but it reports no measurement of Ag concentration in its own electrolyte. Without knowing the actual silver flux, the authors cannot state that the observed nanoampere current is sustained by silver deposition; transport limitations, depletion, or competing reduction reactions (including the oxygen reduction acknowledged near Fig. 2b) could reduce the electrodeposition current far below the measured I_gr. The authors should measure dissolved silver (e.g., ICP-MS) in their cell geometry and compare the integrated deposition charge with the graphene current.
  3. [Supplementary Fig. S6] The sign-variability argument in Fig. S6 does not falsify ionic Coulomb drag. The paper notes that roughly half of the devices produced sign-aligned rather than sign-reversed graphene currents and takes this randomness as evidence against Coulomb drag. However, ionic Coulomb drag sign depends on the graphene carrier type, the direction of ion flow, and screening, none of which are measured in the Fig. S6 devices. Moreover, no inert-electrode control or gate-leakage diagnostic is presented, so other current paths (e.g., streaming potentials, electrochemical leakage at the contacts) are not excluded. The observation is consistent with the deposition interpretation but does not, by itself, make that interpretation exclusive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Raman spectroscopy] In the Methods section, 'The map shown in Fig.1 d' should refer to Fig. 1f, since Fig. 1d is the EDX spectrum.
  2. [Main text, page 3 vs. SI section 2] The main text attributes the 233 cm-1 band to Ag0 plasmonic resonance, while the SI attributes it to Ag nanoparticles formed by laser-induced reduction of AgCl; the two statements should be reconciled explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3a caption and Methods] The caption of Fig. 3a does not state whether the graphene was grounded or biased during the ionic-current measurement; the electrical configuration should be specified in the Methods or caption.
  4. [SI section 3] The sentence 'This experiment represents a more stable electrodeposition process' is vague; specify the applied voltages, currents, and durations for the devices in Fig. S3b and Fig. S6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the silver-contamination interpretation is supported by independent microscopy, EDX, and Raman evidence; the exclusivity claim is under-supported but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the graphene current previously attributed to ionic Coulomb drag is actually caused by silver electrodeposition from Ag/AgCl electrodes. This is an alternative interpretation of an observed signal, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The evidence for silver deposition is independent of the graphene-current measurement: optical images, SEM, EDX Ag peaks, Raman spectra, and cyclic voltammetry redox peaks all identify silver-containing particles on graphene. The paper does not fit any parameter to the measured graphene current, nor does it define the 'electrodeposition current' in terms of the measured current; the current is not used to infer that silver deposition occurred. The proposed mechanism in Fig. 3b is qualitative and does not predict a quantitative amplitude from deposition geometry, so it cannot be said to reproduce the measured nA current by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited solubility value (ref. 30), Raman assignments (refs. 23-28, 40-41), and prior Coulomb-drag measurements (ref. 18) are all external sources, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the present authors is invoked to force the conclusion. The paper's 'solely due to silver deposition' assertion does go beyond the evidence, because no control experiment excludes other current sources and no quantitative model links deposition site/location to the observed nA current. That is a soundness or evidence-grading concern, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, no circular step meets the required standard of an explicit reduction of a prediction to an input, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain bearing the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; no invented entities are introduced. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about AgCl complex solubility, electrochemical reduction on graphene, the sourcemeter as a zero-bias electron reservoir, and the Raman band assignment. The strongest unverified premise is the actual dissolved silver concentration in the 1 M KCl cell.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AgCl dissolution in Cl-rich solutions produces anionic silver complexes, raising silver solubility far above the Ksp estimate.
    Invoked in Section II to explain why Ag+ is available for electrodeposition; based on refs. 29 and 30, not measured in this cell.
  • domain assumption Dissolved silver complexes can be electrochemically reduced onto graphene under the applied potentials used here.
    Supported by the observed CV redox peaks and by prior Ag electrodeposition studies (refs. 31-33); assumed to hold on CVD graphene.
  • domain assumption The sourcemeter connected to graphene can act as an electron source or sink even when no voltage is applied, enabling reduction currents that produce the measured graphene current.
    Proposed in the ionic-drag section; plausible but not directly verified with a control measurement.
  • domain assumption The 233 cm^-1 Raman band is assigned to Ag0 plasmonic resonance rather than AgCl or AgO vibrations.
    Based on supplementary Raman of bulk Ag/AgCl where green laser reduces AgCl to Ag; an interpretation that supports silver metal assignment but is not conclusive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Silver Electrodeposition from Ag/AgCl Electrodes: Implications for Nanoscience." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SCRGMG2

@misc{pith2026250516597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Silver Electrodeposition from Ag/AgCl Electrodes: Implications for Nanoscience},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SCRGMG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16597}
}
read the original abstract

With the advancement of nanoscience, silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) electrodes have become widely utilised in microscale and nanoscale fluidic experiments, because of their stability. However, our findings reveal that the dissolution of AgCl from the electrode in \ch{Cl-}-rich solutions can lead to significant silver contamination, through the formation of silver complexes, \ch{[AgCl_{n+1}]^{n-}}. We demonstrate the electrodeposition of silver particles on graphene in KCl aqueous solution, with AgCl dissolution from the electrode as the sole source of silver. This unexpected electrodeposition process offers a more plausible interpretation of the recently reported ``ionic flow-induced current in graphene''. That is, the measured electronic current in graphene is due to the electrodeposition of silver, challenging the previously claimed ``ionic Coulomb drag''. More caution is called for when using Ag/AgCl electrodes in microfluidic, and especially nanofluidic systems, because AgCl dissolution should not be neglected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Characterization of the device after electrodeposition. a, Schematic of the electrodeposition setup. An exposed Ag/AgCl electrode works as the counter electrode, and a monolayer CVD graphene flake works as the working electrode. b, Optical images of the graphene device before (top) and after (bottom) the electrodeposition. Gold contacts were exposed to the solution during the experiment. Scale bar 25 µm. c, SEM imag… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Electrodeposition process using three-electrode electrochemical cell. a, Schematic of the experimental setup for gating graphene and performing cyclic voltammetry. The setup consists of an Ag/AgCl counter electrode, a reference electrode and a graphene working electrode, forming a three-electrode electrochemical cell. Graphene resistance is monitored by applying a drain current of 100 nA at 30 Hz. VG is the gate vol… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electron current in graphene induced by silver electrodeposition. a, Ionic current, Iion (upper panel), generated between two Ag/AgCl electrodes with ±0.6 V driving voltage and a drag-like electronic current, Igr (lower panel), induced in graphene. Regions coloured in red and blue mark the driving voltage with opposite polarity. b, Illustration of the current generation in graphene via electrodeposition of silver in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. S. Brown, A type of silver chloride electrode suitable for use in dilute solutions, Journal of the American Chemical Society 56, 646 (1934)

    work page 1934

  2. [2]

    Kireev, M

    D. Kireev, M. Brambach, S. Seyock, V. Maybeck, W. Fu, B. Wolfrum, and A. Offenh¨ ausser, Graphene transistors for interfacing with cells: towards a deeper understanding of liquid gating and sensitivity, Scientific reports 7, 6658 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    H. Zhan, J. Cervenka, S. Prawer, and D. J. Garrett, Molecular detection by liquid gated hall effect measurements of graphene, Nanoscale 10, 930 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    R. X. He, P. Lin, Z. K. Liu, H. W. Zhu, X. Z. Zhao, H. L. W. Chan, and F. Yan, Solution-gated graphene field effect transistors integrated in microfluidic systems and used for flow velocity detection, Nano letters 12, 1404 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Traversi, C

    F. Traversi, C. Raillon, S. M. Benameur, K. Liu, S. Khlybov, M. Tosun, D. Krasnozhon, A. Kis, and A. Radenovic, Detecting the translocation of dna through a nanopore using graphene nanoribbons, Nature nanotechnology 8, 939 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    K. V. Agrawal, L. W. Drahushuk, and M. S. Strano, Observation and analysis of the coulter effect through carbon nanotube and graphene nanopores, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 374, 20150357 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Garaj, S

    S. Garaj, S. Liu, J. A. Golovchenko, and D. Branton, Molecule-hugging graphene nanopores, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 12192 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Jiang, C

    X. Jiang, C. Zhao, Y. Noh, Y. Xu, Y. Chen, F. Chen, L. Ma, W. Ren, N. R. Aluru, and J. Feng, Nonlinear electrohydro- dynamic ion transport in graphene nanopores, Science advances 8, eabj2510 (2022). 6

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    R. C. Rollings, A. T. Kuan, and J. A. Golovchenko, Ion selectivity of graphene nanopores, Nature communications 7, 11408 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    T. Jain, B. C. Rasera, R. J. S. Guerrero, M. S. H. Boutilier, S. C. O’Hern, J.-C. Idrobo, and R. Karnik, Heterogeneous sub-continuum ionic transport in statistically isolated graphene nanopores, Nature nanotechnology 10, 1053 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    J. Feng, K. Liu, R. D. Bulushev, S. Khlybov, D. Dumcenco, A. Kis, and A. Radenovic, Identification of single nucleotides in mos2 nanopores, Nature nanotechnology 10, 1070 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    S. Su, Y. Zhang, S. Peng, L. Guo, Y. Liu, E. Fu, H. Yao, J. Du, G. Du, and J. Xue, Multifunctional graphene heterogeneous nanochannel with voltage-tunable ion selectivity, Nature communications 13, 4894 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Zhang, M

    P. Zhang, M. Xia, F. Zhuge, Y. Zhou, Z. Wang, B. Dong, Y. Fu, K. Yang, Y. Li, Y. He, R. H. Scheicher, and X. S. Miao, Nanochannel-based transport in an interfacial memristor can emulate the analog weight modulation of synapses, Nano letters 19, 4279 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    J. A. Golovchenko, J. Kong, A. Reina, W. Hubbard, S. Garaj, and D. Branton, Graphene as a subnanometre trans-electrode membrane, Nature 467, 190 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    G. F. Schneider, S. W. Kowalczyk, V. E. Calado, G. Pandraud, H. W. Zandbergen, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and C. Dekker, Dna translocation through graphene nanopores, Nano letters 10, 3163 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    K. J. Freedman, C. W. Ahn, and M. J. Kim, Detection of long and short dna using nanopores with graphitic polyhedral edges, ACS nano 7, 5008 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Bonaccini Calia, E

    A. Bonaccini Calia, E. Masvidal-Codina, T. M. Smith, N. Sch¨ afer, D. Rathore, E. Rodr ´ ıguez-Lucas, X. Illa, J. M. De la Cruz, E. Del Corro, E. Prats-Alfonso, D. Viana, J. Bousquet, C. H´ ebert, J. Mart ´ ınez-Aguilar, J. R. Sperling, M. Drummond, A. Halder, A. Dodd, K. Barr...

    2021

  10. [18]

    F. Chen, Y. Zhao, A. Saxena, C. Zhao, M. Niu, N. R. Aluru, and J. Feng, Inducing electric current in graphene using ionic flow, Nano letters 23, 4464 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Xiong, K

    M. Xiong, K. Song, and J.-P. Leburton, Ionic coulomb drag in nanofluidic semiconductor channels for energy harvest, Nano energy 117, 108860 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    J. R. Rumble, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, ninety-ninth edition. ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Levard, E

    C. Levard, E. M. Hotze, G. V. Lowry, and G. E. Brown, Environmental transformations of silver nanoparticles: Impact on stability and toxicity, Environmental science & technology 46, 6900 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Cortijo-Campos, R

    S. Cortijo-Campos, R. Ram ´ ırez-Jim´ enez, E. Climent-Pascual, M. Aguilar-Pujol, F. Jim´ enez-Villacorta, L. Mart ´ ınez, R. Jim´ enez-Riob´ oo, C. Prieto, and A. de Andr´ es, Raman amplification in the ultra-small limit of ag nanoparticles on sio2 and graphene: Size and inte...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Z. Li, J. Huang, J. Zhong, and J. Li, Preparation of agcl with enhanced photocatalytic activity using ionic liquid as chlorine source, Applied physics. A, Materials science & processing 126 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Otto, Raman scattering from adsorbates on silver, Surface science 92, 145 (1980)

    A. Otto, Raman scattering from adsorbates on silver, Surface science 92, 145 (1980)

    1980

  17. [25]

    Atkinson, D

    G. Atkinson, D. Guzonas, and D. Irish, Raman spectral studies at the silver surface of the ag ¦kcl, pyridine electrode, Chemical physics letters 75, 557 (1980)

    1980

  18. [26]

    Martina, R

    I. Martina, R. Wiesinger, D. Jembrih-Simbuerger, and M. Schreiner, Micro-raman characterisation of silver corrosion products, e-Preservation Science 9, 1 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Nagiri, K

    R. Nagiri, K. Kumar, and S. Aryasomayajula, Silver oxide (ago) thin films for surface enhanced raman scattering (sers) studies, AIP Conference Proceedings 1267, 1005 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    C. Caro, A. P. Zaderenko, F. G´ amez, and C. Krafft, Preparation of surface-enhanced raman scattering substrates based on immobilized silver-capped nanoparticles, Journal of spectroscopy (Hindawi) 2018, 1 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Suzuki, A

    H. Suzuki, A. Hiratsuka, S. Sasaki, and I. Karube, Problems associated with the thin-film ag/agcl reference electrode and a novel structure with improved durability, Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical 46, 104 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    S. Ito, H. Hachiya, K. Baba, Y. Asano, and H. Wada, Improvement of the silver/silver chloride reference electrode and its application to ph measurement, Talanta 42, 1685 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    S. C. S. Lai, R. A. Lazenby, P. M. Kirkman, and P. R. Unwin, Nucleation, aggregative growth and detachment of metal nanoparticles during electrodeposition at electrode surfaces, Chemical science 6, 1126 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    G. G. Hasan, A. Khelef, N. Chaabia, M. L. Tedjani, and M. Althamthami, Electrochemical deposition of ag nanoparticles on ito-coated glass: effect of different cyclic voltammetry scan rates on ag deposition, Ferroelectrics 602, 121 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    T. N. Huan, S. Kim, P. Van Tuong, and H. Chung, Au–ag bimetallic nanodendrite synthesized via simultaneous co- electrodeposition and its application as a sers substrate, RSC advances 4, 3929 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Svetlova, D

    A. Svetlova, D. Kireev, G. Beltramo, D. Mayer, and A. Offenh¨ ausser, Origins of leakage currents on electrolyte-gated graphene field-effect transistors, ACS applied electronic materials 3, 5355 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Jiang, W

    Y. Jiang, W. Liu, T. Wang, Y. Wu, T. Mei, L. Wang, G. Xu, Y. Wang, N. Liu, and K. Xiao, A nanofluidic chemoelectrical generator with enhanced energy harvesting by ion-electron coulomb drag, Nature communications 15, 8582 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Rabinowitz, C

    J. Rabinowitz, C. Cohen, and K. L. Shepard, An electrically actuated, carbon-nanotube-based biomimetic ion pump, Nano letters 20, 1148 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    K. R. Cho, M. Kim, B. Kim, G. Shin, S. Lee, and W. Kim, Investigation of the agcl formation mechanism on the ag wire surface for the fabrication of a marine low-frequency-electric-field-detection ag/agcl sensor electrode, ACS omega 7, 25110 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Katan, S

    T. Katan, S. Szpak, and D. N. Bennion, Silver/silver chloride electrodes: Surface morphology on charging and discharging, Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 121, 757 (1974). 7

    1974

  31. [39]

    X. Li, W. Cai, J. An, S. Kim, J. Nah, D. Yang, R. Piner, A. Velamakanni, I. Jung, E. Tutuc, S. K. Banerjee, L. Colombo, and R. S. Ruoff, Large-area synthesis of high-quality and uniform graphene films on copper foils, Science 324, 1312 (2009), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/1...

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    von der Osten, Polarized raman spectra of silver halide crystals, Phys

    W. von der Osten, Polarized raman spectra of silver halide crystals, Phys. Rev. B 9, 789 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    X. Jin, J. Lu, P. Liu, and H. Tong, The electrochemical formation and reduction of a thick agcl deposition layer on a silver substrate, Journal of electroanalytical chemistry 542, 85 (2003). 8 SUPPOR TING INFORMA TION FOR SIL VER ELECTRODEPOSITION FROM AG/AGCL ELECTRODES: IMPL...

    2003

  34. [42]

    1 c of the main text, with elemental distributions plotted for Ag, C, O, Si, K, and Cl

    EDX mapping of the silver-deposited graphene Figure S1 presents the energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) colour mapping for the sample shown in Fig. 1 c of the main text, with elemental distributions plotted for Ag, C, O, Si, K, and Cl. The colour maps indicate that the particles on ...

  35. [43]

    1(e) of the main text

    Raman spectroscopy of Ag and AgCl We conducted Raman spectroscopy for pure Ag and pure AgCl samples to reveal the origin of the 233 cm −1 band in the Raman spectra of silver-deposited graphene, shown in Fig. 1(e) of the main text. Both Ag and AgCl samples were scratched using ...

  36. [44]

    ionic Coulomb drag

    Silver electrodeposition on CVD and mechanically exfoliated monolayer graphene. With hindsight, it is now easy for us to spot silver electrodeposition and to attribute the observed electronic current in graphene to the electrodeposition of silver-containing particles. However,...

  37. [45]

    ionic Coulomb drag

    Additional data of “ionic Coulomb drag” experiments Two measurement configurations were used to investigate the “ionic Coulomb drag”: DC and AC, with their experimental setups shown in Fig. S6 a and b, respectively. Details of the DC setup are provided in the main text. Briefl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.