Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Correlative angstrom-scale microscopy and spectroscopy of graphite-water interfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Three graphite-water interface states explain a decade of conflicting results

desk verdict Three-state graphite–water model is credible and well supported, but the load-bearing d12-to-hydrocarbon mapping relies on non-co-located measurements and an unidentified species. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09908 v1 pith:ZSYXGV6M submitted 2025-06-11 physics.chem-ph

Lalith Krishna Samanth Bonagiri , Diana M. Arvelo , Fujia Zhao , Jaehyeon Kim , Qian Ai , Shan Zhou , Kaustubh S. Panse , Ricardo Garcia
show 1 more author
Yingjie Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords interfacialwaterthree-dimensionalatomicforcemicroscopySHINERSgraphite-waterinterfacehydrogenbondnetworkadventitioushydrocarbonselectrifiedinterfacesRamanspectroscopy
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 argues that contradictory reports on water structure at graphite and other solid surfaces arise because the interface is not a single structure but switches among three states. At open circuit, a freshly cleaned interface is transient pristine water with strongly broken hydrogen bonds (State 1); over about an hour it is replaced by adventitious hydrocarbons with 4–5 Å spacing (State 2). Applying sufficiently negative potentials converts either state into a stable pristine-water state (State 3) whose water has a broader spread of hydrogen-bond configurations. If this picture is right, it reconciles microscopy and spectroscopy datasets that previously seemed incompatible.

What carries the argument

The central descriptor is $d_{12}$, the first-to-second-layer spacing in 3D-AFM force–distance curves, which acts as a molecular-identity proxy: ~3 Å indicates pristine hydration layers and 4–5 Å indicates adventitious hydrocarbon layers. The complementary machinery is SHINERS, whose O–H stretching band is deconvoluted into five Voigt peaks (OH-1 through OH-5) assigned to decreasing hydrogen-bond coordination numbers; the peak positions, widths, and area fractions report hydrogen-bond breaking and diversification, while C–H and fingerprint peaks report hydrocarbon presence. Correlating these two signals on the same interface within ~2 nm of the surface is what lets the paper distinguish the three states.

What would settle it

A co-located measurement would settle it: if simultaneous 3D-AFM and interface-enhanced Raman on one spot ever showed strong C–H bands while $d_{12}$ stayed at 3 Å, or showed 4–5 Å spacing with no hydrocarbon signal, the $d_{12}$-to-identity mapping would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim, based on correlative 3D atomic force microscopy and shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SHINERS), that the graphite–water interface at open circuit can be in either a transient pristine-water state with $d_{12}\sim3$ Å spacing and strong hydrogen-bond breaking (State 1), or a steady hydrocarbon-dominated state with $d_{12}\sim4$ to 5 Å and weak hydrogen-bond breaking of the surrounding water (State 2). At sufficiently negative potentials, both states converge to a stable pristine-water state (State 3) with unchanged $d_{12}\sim3$ Å, constant interfacial water amount, and a broader distribution of hydrogen-bond configurations that includes a low-coordinated non-donor water species. The transition from State 2 to State 3 occurs mostly between −1 V and −1.5 V vs Ag/AgCl, with hydrocarbons displaced by water; returning to open circuit restores State 1, which then ages back to State 2. This three-state model is offered as the resolution of long-standing disputes about whether solid–water interfaces are pristine water layers or hydrocarbon-dominated regions.

Load-bearing premise

The entire state assignment rests on reading a 3 Å interlayer spacing as pristine water and a 4–5 Å spacing as adventitious hydrocarbons, but the AFM and Raman measurements are not made on the same spot at the same time, so this identity mapping is assumed rather than directly proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-state model is correct, prior studies that reported either pristine water layers or hydrocarbon layers at graphite–water and other solid–water interfaces were not necessarily wrong; they were observing different states of the same system.
  • The $d_{12}$ spacing is potential-independent for pristine interfaces, meaning that applied electric fields reorient interfacial water and change its hydrogen-bond configurations without changing the layer spacing or total water density.
  • Applying sufficiently negative potentials converts a hydrocarbon-contaminated interface into a clean pristine-water interface, and the effect is reversible upon returning to open circuit followed by hours of ageing.
  • The hydrogen-bond configuration at an interface is controlled by three separable factors: the solid surface, any intervening hydrocarbon layer, and the interfacial electric field, each of which can now be studied independently.
  • The same state diagram is expected to apply to other hydrophobic and air-exposed solid–water interfaces, not just graphite, which would make the result broadly relevant to electrochemistry, biosensing, and photocatalysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the authors leave implicit: electrochemical studies of carbon and other electrodes should report the ageing state and history of the interface, because measurements taken at open circuit without this control can silently switch between State 1 and State 2 within an hour.
  • The hydrocarbon-to-water transition at negative potentials suggests a practical in-situ cleaning strategy for hydrophobic electrodes: a short negative polarization sweep could remove adventitious organic layers before sensitive interfacial measurements.
  • The zero Stark shift of OH-5 implies a nearly fixed molecular orientation with its transition dipole parallel to the surface; this is a testable prediction that polarization-resolved Raman or phase-sensitive sum-frequency spectroscopy could verify directly.
  • A natural extension would be to check whether the same three-state behavior appears on metal electrodes such as gold or platinum, where hydrocarbon contamination is also common but the surface chemistry is different; the authors only propose this, they do not demonstrate it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines three-dimensional atomic force microscopy (3D-AFM) and shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SHINERS) to study the HOPG/water and HOPG/aqueous-electrolyte interface in situ. The authors report a three-state model: State 1, a transient pristine water interface with strong hydrogen-bond breaking and ~3 Å layer spacing; State 2, a steady hydrocarbon-dominated interface with 4–5 Å layer spacing and weak hydrogen-bond breaking of the remaining water; and State 3, a stable pristine water interface at negative potentials with a broader distribution of hydrogen-bond configurations. The paper argues that prior contradictory microscopy and spectroscopy results on solid–water interfaces can be reconciled because different studies sampled different interfacial states. The work is based on 16 independent 3D-AFM data sets and 4 SHINERS data sets acquired in two laboratories over four years, with a graphite-free SiO2 control that rules out a direct silica contribution to the emergent OH peaks.

Significance. If the three-state model is correct, it provides a unified explanation for longstanding disagreements in the interfacial-water literature and highlights the importance of controlling sample age and electrochemical history. The multi-year, cross-laboratory dataset is a notable strength, as is the explicit silica control and the careful attention to initial sample state and potential protocol. The paper includes a large amount of reproducibility metadata: raw force maps and spectra are documented in the supplementary figures, and key time-evolution and potential-dependent trends are shown for multiple independent runs. However, the central chemical identification of the 4–5 Å AFM layer as hydrocarbon rests on non-co-located AFM and SHINERS measurements and on prior same-group assignments, which limits the external validity of the current evidence for State 2 and for the State 2→3 transition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Interfacial configurations at OCP] The assignment of d12 ≈ 3 Å to pristine water layers and d12 ≈ 4–5 Å to adventitious hydrocarbon layers is load-bearing for State 2 and for the State 2→State 3 transition, yet the paper itself states that the exact nature of the 4–5 Å species 'remains unknown to date' and that the fingerprint-mode assignments are 'still under debate' (ref 50). Moreover, the AFM and SHINERS measurements are not co-located: AFM probes bare HOPG, whereas SHINERS probes the Au/SiO2 nanoparticle–HOPG gap, a confined and geometrically different environment with potentially different hydrocarbon accumulation kinetics. The claim that the time evolution of d12 and of the νCH/FP intensities reflects the same molecular exchange is thus an assumption that should be explicitly defended—for example, by co-located chemical identification on bare HOPG, by a control showing that the nanoparticle hotspots do not alter accumulation kinetics, or by an explicit estimate of how the geometric difference affects the inferred identity. Please also reconcile the SHINERS State 2→3 transition potential (around −2 V in Fig. 4c) with the AFM d12 transition (mostly −1 to −1.5 V in Fig. 4a,b) before using the two observables as a single state descriptor.
  2. [Electrified graphite–water interfaces: pristine response; Electrified graphite–water interfaces: non-pristine response] The peak positions, FWHMs, and area fractions of OH-1 to OH-5 reported in Figs. 3e–h and 4e–g are presented without error bars or uncertainty estimates, even though they are derived from a five-Voigt decomposition with free positions, widths, and areas. The quantitative claims that support the 'broader distribution of HB configurations' in State 3 (increased OH-1, OH-4, OH-5; decreased OH-2) and the emergence of OH-3 to OH-5 at −2 V in the non-pristine case should be accompanied by the variance across independent scans (the paper mentions seven scans for the OH-5 Stark shift, but does not provide statistics for the other metrics) and by a sensitivity analysis to the number of Voigt peaks, baseline treatment, and initial-guess dependence. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the observed trends are robust or artifacts of the fitting procedure.
  3. [Electrified graphite–water interfaces: pristine response] The identification of OH-5 as the antisymmetric OH stretch of non-donor water is based solely on the absence of a Stark shift. While the paper states this was consistently observed in seven potential scans over three independent sets, the argument relies on the assumption that the only configuration with zero Stark shift is the proposed ND orientation. The authors do not provide an independent test (e.g., isotopic dilution or polarization-resolved Raman) to discriminate among alternative configurations with a dipole difference perpendicular to the field. Because the presence of 'monomer-like' ND water in State 3 is highlighted in the conclusion, this assignment should be labeled as a tentative hypothesis or supported by additional evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Please qualify the word 'correlative' in the abstract: the 3D-AFM and SHINERS measurements are not performed on the same physical location or simultaneously, so 'correlative' should be phrased to indicate that the two techniques were applied to the same sample type and protocol rather than co-located.
  2. [Interfacial configurations at OCP] In the sentence defining d12, please specify exactly how the first and second layer positions are measured in the force–distance curves (e.g., peak maxima) and how many independent force curves contribute to each reported d12 value; this information is currently only in the Methods section and would improve the transparency of the main-text descriptor.
  3. [Fig. 3b and Fig. 4b] The potential-dependence plots of d12 would be clearer if the direction of the potential scan (forward vs. backward) was indicated for each symbol, particularly for Fig. 4b where the return-to-OCP point is included.
  4. [Introduction / Fig. 2] The first use of the state labels State 1, State 2, and State 3 occurs in the abstract; please define these terms explicitly at their first mention in the main text (or state where they are defined) and add a sentence in the Fig. 2 caption summarizing the three-state scheme so that readers can track the notation.
  5. [References] Reference 50 (Larkin, chapter 7) is a general spectral interpretation guide; for the statement that precise assignments of the hydrocarbon fingerprint modes are 'still under debate', please cite a more specific source or sources that discuss the ambiguity of C–O/C–F/aromatic ring assignments in surface-enhanced Raman spectra.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the d12-to-species mapping leans on same-group priors, but SHINERS and the silica control keep the three-state model empirically independent.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, no step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input or to a same-group citation by construction. The three states are defined by jointly observed 3D-AFM d12 values and SHINERS band intensities, and the State 2 chemical identification is supported by independent fingerprint (FP) and C-H stretching (nuCH) growth together with O-H (nuOH) decline over time, plus a graphite-free Au/SiO2 control that excludes shell contributions. The AFM-only mapping of ~3 A to pristine water and 4-5 A to adventitious hydrocarbons is imported from refs 6, 25, and 37, which include same-group authors; however, this mapping is not the sole support for the central model, and the SHINERS data correlate with the same ageing and potential transitions without being fitted to the AFM data. The paper explicitly flags the 4-5 A species' exact nature and the fingerprint-mode assignments as debated, so the interpretive dependence is a correctness and external-validity risk rather than a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no equation reduces to its own input. The score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation in the d12-to-species interpretive prior, which is not load-bearing for the overall three-state model.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities such as particles or forces are postulated. The three states are classifications of observed configurations, and ND water is adopted from ref 18 rather than introduced here. The main hidden inputs are interpretive: the spacing-to-species mapping and the spectral peak decomposition, both of which are empirical fitting or literature-based assumptions rather than measured first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • OH-1 to OH-5 Voigt peak positions = 3419, 3517, 3600, 3658, 3698 cm-1 at pristine OCP; red-shift with ageing and potential
    Used to decompose the OH band and to compute area fractions that define the hydrogen-bond configuration claims; values are fit to each spectrum rather than fixed by prior theory.
  • OH-1 to OH-5 peak widths (FWHM) = Not tabulated in main text; extracted from Voigt fits
    Peak broadening is interpreted as diversification of hydrogen-bond configurations, so fitted widths are load-bearing for that claim.
  • OH-1 to OH-5 area fractions = e.g., OH-2 63% pristine vs 76% aged; OH-3 19% vs 4%
    Used to quantify strong versus weak hydrogen-bond breaking and the redistribution among configurations; these fractions are products of spectral fitting.
  • OH total area normalization = 0 V data scaled to 1 for each potential scan
    Before averaging, peak areas were normalized by scaling the 0 V data to 1; this hand-chosen normalization affects the apparent potential-independence of total water amount.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption d12 around 3 Å maps to pristine water layers and 4-5 Å maps to hydrocarbon layers.
    Introduced in 'Interfacial configurations at OCP' and used throughout; based on refs 6, 25, 37, not independently proven within this paper.
  • domain assumption Higher OH wavenumber components correspond to lower hydrogen-bond coordination numbers.
    Used to translate OH-1..OH-5 area fractions into 'strong HB breaking' and 'broad distribution'; follows refs 17, 19, 54-58, and the paper acknowledges the assignment is approximate.
  • domain assumption SHINERS hotspots sample the same interfacial liquid as 3D-AFM and are not perturbed by the Au/SiO2 shell.
    The correlation of AFM and Raman data assumes spatial equivalence; the silica control excludes one artifact but not full equivalence.
  • domain assumption 3D-AFM force profiles reflect equilibrium liquid density layering.
    Standard interpretation of force reconstruction, cited to refs 73, 74 and prior hydration literature.
  • domain assumption Electrochemical cleaning removes adventitious hydrocarbons and ligands to create State 1.
    Used to prepare State 1; details are referenced to prior publications (refs 16, 42) rather than fully described here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlative angstrom-scale microscopy and spectroscopy of graphite-water interfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSYXGV6M

@misc{pith2026250609908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlative angstrom-scale microscopy and spectroscopy of graphite-water interfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSYXGV6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09908}
}
read the original abstract

Water at solid surfaces is key for many processes ranging from biological signal transduction to membrane separation and renewable energy conversion. However, under realistic conditions, which often include environmental and surface charge variations, the interfacial water structure remains elusive. Here we overcome this limit by combining three-dimensional atomic force microscopy and interface-sensitive Raman spectroscopy to characterize the graphite-water interfacial structure in situ. Through correlative analysis of the spatial liquid density maps and vibrational peaks within ~2 nm of the graphite surface, we find the existence of two interfacial configurations at open circuit potential, a transient state where pristine water exhibits strong hydrogen bond (HB) breaking effects, and a steady state with hydrocarbons dominating the interface and weak HB breaking in the surrounding water. At sufficiently negative potentials, both states transition into a stable structure featuring pristine water with a broader distribution of HB configurations. Our three-state model resolves many long-standing controversies on interfacial water structure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Coexistence of Two Types of Liquid Structures at Platinum-Water Interfaces

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At Pt-water interfaces, atomically flat regions show water layering with ~0.33 nm spacing, while stripe-like regions show hydrocarbon-like layering with ~0.45 nm spacing, revealed by 3D-AFM and matched by WAXS.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Björneholm, O. et al. Water at Interfaces. Chem. Rev. 116, 7698–7726 (2016). 18

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    A., Nihonyanagi, S., Yamaguchi, S

    Mondal, J. A., Nihonyanagi, S., Yamaguchi, S. & Tahara, T. Structure and Orientation of Water at Charged Lipid Monolayer/Water Interfaces Pr obed by Heterodyne-Detected Vibrational Sum Frequency Generation Spectroscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 10656–10657 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    A., Ping, Y

    Pham, T. A., Ping, Y. & Galli, G. Modelling heterogeneous interfaces for solar water splitting. Nat. Mater. 16, 401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Wang, T. et al. Enhancing oxygen reduction electrocatalysis by tuning interfacial hydrogen bonds. Nat. Catal. 4, 753–762 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    W., Kropman, M

    Omta, A. W., Kropman, M. F., Woutersen, S. & Ba kker, H. J. Negligible Effect of Ions on the Hydrogen-Bond Structure in Liquid Water. Science 301, 347–349 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    R., Martin-Jimenez, D

    Uhlig, M. R., Martin-Jimenez, D. & Garcia, R. Atomic-scale mapping of hydrophobic layers on graphene and few-layer MoS2 and WSe2 in water. Nat. Commun. 10, 2606 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    & Kühnle, A

    Seibert, S., Klassen, S., Latus, A., Bechstein, R. & Kühnle, A. Origin of Ubiquitous Stripes at the Graphite–Water Interface. Langmuir 36, 7789–7794 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    & Schreier, M

    Lucky, C. & Schreier, M. Mind the Interface: The Role of Adsorption in Electrocatalysis. ACS Nano 18, 6008–6015 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    & Garcia, R

    Martin-Jimenez, D., Chacon, E., Tarazona, P. & Garcia, R. Atomically resolved three-dimensional structures of electrolyte aqueous solutions near a solid surface. Nat. Commun. 7, 12164 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Miyazawa, K. et al. A relationship between three-dimensional surface hydration structures and force distribution measured by atomic force microscopy. Nanoscale 8, 7334–7342 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Umeda, K. et al. Atomic-resolution three-dimensional hydr ation structures on a heterogeneously charged surface. Nat. Commun. 8, 2111 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    & Wang, Z

    Tang, Z., Lin, S. & Wang, Z. L. Unveiling Contact-Electrification Effect on Interfacial Water Oscillation. Adv. Mater. 36, 2407507 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Nakouzi, E. et al. Moving beyond the Solvent-Tip Approximation to Determine Site-Specific Variations of Interfacial Water Structure through 3D Force Microscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 125, 1282– 1291 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Söngen, H. et al. Resolving Point Defects in the Hydration Structure of Calcite (10.4) with Three- Dimensional Atomic Force Microscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 116101 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Fukuma, T

    Asakawa, H., Yoshioka, S., Nishimura, K. & Fukuma, T. Spatial Distribution of Lipid Headgroups and Water Molecules at Membrane/Water Interfaces Visualized by Three-Dimensional Scanning Force Microscopy. ACS Nano 6, 9013–9020 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Kim, J., Zhao, F., Bonagiri, L. K. S., Ai, Q. & Zhang, Y. Electrical Double Layers Modulate the Growth of Solid–Electrolyte Interphases. Chem. Mater. 36, 9156–9166 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Tian, C. S. & Shen, Y. R. Structure and chargi ng of hydrophobic material/water interfaces studied by phase-sensitive sum-frequency vibrational spectroscopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 15148–15153 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Velasco-Velez, J.-J. et al. The structure of interfacial water on gold electrodes studied by x-ray absorption spectroscopy. Science 346, 831–834 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Li, C.-Y. et al. In situ probing electrified interfacial wa ter structures at atomically flat surfaces. Nat. Mater. 18, 697–701 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Toney, M. F. et al. Voltage-dependent ordering of water mo lecules at an electrode–electrolyte interface. Nature 368, 444–446 (1994). 19

    1994

  13. [21]

    Poynor, A. et al. How Water Meets a Hydrophobic Surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 266101 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Schwendel, D. et al. Interaction of Water with Self-Assem bled Monolayers: Neutron Reflectivity Measurements of the Water Density in the Interface Region. Langmuir 19, 2284–2293 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Li, C.-Y. et al. Unconventional interfacial water structure of highly concentrated aqueous electrolytes at negative electrode polarizations. Nat. Commun. 13, 5330 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Montenegro, A. et al. Asymmetric response of interfacial water to applied electric fields. Nature 594, 62–65 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Interfacial Liquid Water on Graphite, Graphene, and 2D Materials

    Garcia, R. Interfacial Liquid Water on Graphite, Graphene, and 2D Materials. ACS Nano 17, 51–69 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Yang, S. et al. Nature of the Electrical Double Layer on Suspended Graphene Electrodes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 13327–13333 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Maccarini, M. et al. Density Depletion at Solid −Liquid Interfaces: a Neutron Reflectivity Study. Langmuir 23, 598–608 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    & Fukui, K

    Utsunomiya, T., Yokota, Y., Enoki, T. & Fukui, K. Potential-dependent hydration structures at aqueous solution/graphite interfaces by electrochemical frequency modulation atomic force microscopy. Chem. Commun. 50, 15537–15540 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Li, J. F. et al. Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Nature 464, 392–395 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Ai, Q., Bonagiri, L. K. S., Farokh Payam, A., Aluru, N. R. & Zhang, Y. Toward Quantitative Interpretation of 3D Atomic Force Microscopy at Solid–Liquid Interfaces. J. Phys. Chem. C 129, 5273– 5286 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Dong, J.-C. et al. In situ Raman spectroscopic evidence for oxygen reduction reaction intermediates at platinum single-crystal surfaces. Nat. Energy 4, 60–67 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Li, J. F. et al. Extraordinary enhancement of raman scatte ring from pyridine on single crystal Au and Pt electrodes by shell-isolated Au nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 15922–15925 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    & Morris, G

    Zou, L., Li, L., Song, H. & Morris, G. Using mesoporous carbon electrodes for brackish water desalination. Water Res. 42, 2340–2348 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Chakrabarti, M. H. et al. Application of carbon materials in redox flow batteries. J. Power Sources 253, 150–166 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    & Dai, L

    Gong, K., Du, F., Xia, Z., Durstock, M. & Dai, L. Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Nanotube Arrays with High Electrocatalytic Activity for Oxygen Reduction. Science 323, 760–764 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Zhang, W. et al. Recent development of carbon electrode materials and their bioanalytical and environmental applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 45, 715–752 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Arvelo, D., R

    M. Arvelo, D., R. Uhlig, M., Comer, J. & García , R. Interfacial layering of hydrocarbons on pristine graphite surfaces immersed in water. Nanoscale 14, 14178–14184 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Benaglia, S. et al. Tip Charge Dependence of Three-Dimensional AFM Mapping of Concentrated Ionic Solutions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 196101 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    I., Loh, S.-H

    Kilpatrick, J. I., Loh, S.-H. & Jarvis, S. P. Dir ectly Probing the Effects of Ions on Hydration Forces at Interfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 2628–2634 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Uhlig, M. R. & Garcia, R. In Situ Atomic-Sca le Imaging of Interfacial Water under 3D Nanoscale Confinement. Nano Lett. 21, 5593–5598 (2021). 20

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Garcia, R

    Fukuma, T. & Garcia, R. Atomic- and Molecu lar-Resolution Mapping of Solid–Liquid Interfaces by 3D Atomic Force Microscopy. ACS Nano 12, 11785–11797 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Kim, J., Zhao, F., Zhou, S., Panse, K. S. & Zhang, Y. Spectroscopic investigation of the structure of a pyrrolidinium-based ionic liquid at electrified interfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 156, 114701 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    P., Fischbach, D

    Vidano, R. P., Fischbach, D. B., Willis, L. J. & Loehr, T. M. Observation of Raman band shifting with excitation wavelength for carbons and graphites. Solid State Commun. 39, 341–344 (1981)

    1981

  36. [44]

    & Osada, M

    Kakihana, M. & Osada, M. Chapter 18 - Raman Spectroscopy as a Characterization Tool for Carbon Materials. in Carbon Alloys (eds. Yasuda, E. et al.) 285–298 (Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2003). doi:10.1016/B978-008044163-4/50018-8

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    & Umapathy, S

    Kuhar, N., Sil, S., Verma, T. & Umapathy, S. Challenges in application of Raman spectroscopy to biology and materials. RSC Adv. 8, 25888–25908 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Yu, Y. et al. New C−H Stretching Vibrational Spectral Features in the Raman Spectra of Gaseous and Liquid Ethanol. J. Phys. Chem. C 111, 8971–8978 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    M., Li, L

    Hurst, J. M., Li, L. & Liu, H. Adventitious hydrocarbons and the graphite-water interface. Carbon 134, 464–469 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Larkin, P. J. Chapter 6 - IR and Raman Sp ectra–Structure Correlations: Characteristic Group Frequencies. in Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy (Second Edition) (ed. Larkin, P. J.) 85–134 (Elsevier, 2018). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804162-8.00006-9

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Li, S., Zlotnikov, S

    Tolman, N. L., Li, S., Zlotnikov, S. B., McQuain, A. D. & Liu, H. Characterization of environmental airborne hydrocarbon contaminants by surface-enhanced Raman scattering. J. Chem. Phys. 160, 154708 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Larkin, P. J. Chapter 7 - General Outline fo r IR and Raman Spectral Interpretation. in Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy (Second Edition) (ed. Larkin, P. J.) 135–151 (Elsevier, 2018). doi:10.1016/B978- 0-12-804162-8.00007-0

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Ni, Y., Shi, L

    Tainter, C. J., Ni, Y., Shi, L. & Skinner, J. L. Hydrogen Bonding and OH-Stretch Spectroscopy in Water: Hexamer (Cage), Liquid Surface, Liquid, and Ice. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4, 12–17 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    First- Principles

    Medders, G. R. & Paesani, F. Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy of Liquid Water through “First- Principles” Many-Body Molecular Dynamics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 1145–1154 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kananenka, A. A. & Skinner, J. L. Fermi res onance in OH-stretch vibra tional spectroscopy of liquid water and the water hexamer. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 244107 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Shen, L. et al. Interfacial Structure of Water as a New Descriptor of the Hydrogen Evolution Reaction. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 59, 22397–22402 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    F., Brown, M

    Scatena, L. F., Brown, M. G. & Richmond, G. L. Water at Hydrophobic Surfaces: Weak Hydrogen Bonding and Strong Orientation Effects. Science 292, 908–912 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    Ji, N., Ostroverkhov, V., Tian, C. S. & Shen, Y. R. Characterization of Vibrational Resonances of Water-Vapor Interfaces by Phase-Se nsitive Sum-Frequency Spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096102 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Murphy, W. F. & Bernstein, H. J. Raman spectra and an assignment of the vibrational stretching region of water. J. Phys. Chem. 76, 1147–1152 (1972)

    1972

  50. [58]

    F., Albertí, M

    Paolantoni, M., Lago, N. F., Albertí, M. & Laga nà, A. Tetrahedral Ordering in Water: Raman Profiles and Their Temperature Dependence. J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 15100–15105 (2009). 21

    2009

  51. [59]

    & Sun, M

    Qiao, M.-X., Zhang, Y., Zhai, L.-F. & Sun, M. Corrosion of graphite electrode in electrochemical advanced oxidation processes: Degradation pr otocol and environmental implication. Chem. Eng. J. 344, 410–418 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Kumeda, T. et al. Surface Extraction Process During Initial Oxidation of Pt(111): Effect of Hydrophilic/Hydrophobic Cations in Alkaline Media. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 146, 10312–10320 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    & Osawa, M

    Ataka, K., Yotsuyanagi, T. & Osawa, M. Potentia l-Dependent Reorientation of Water Molecules at an Electrode/Electrolyte Interface Studied by Surf ace-Enhanced Infrared Absorption Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 10664–10672 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    & Boxer, S

    Chattopadhyay, A. & Boxer, S. G. Vibrational Stark Effect Spectroscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117, 1449–1450 (1995)

    1995

  55. [63]

    Andrews, S. S. & Boxer, S. G. Vibrational St ark Effects of Nitriles I. Methods and Experimental Results. J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 11853–11863 (2000)

    2000

  56. [64]

    Villo, P., Shatskiy, A., Kärkäs, M. D. & Lundberg, H. Electrosynthetic C −O Bond Activation in Alcohols and Alcohol Derivatives. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62, e202211952 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    & F ontana, A

    Gagyi Palffy, E., Starzewski, P., Labani, A. & F ontana, A. Electrochemical reduction of polyaromatic compounds. J. Appl. Electrochem. 24, 337–343 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    King, J. F. & Mitch, W. A. Electrochemical re duction of halogenated or ganic contaminants using carbon-based cathodes: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 342–367 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Bewig, K. W. & Zisman, W. A. The Wetting of Gold and Platinum by Water. J. Phys. Chem. 69, 4238– 4242 (1965)

    1965

  60. [68]

    Park, J. Y. How titanium dioxide cleans itself. Science 361, 753–753 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    & Jacob, H

    Grundner, M. & Jacob, H. Investigations on hydr ophilic and hydrophobic silicon (100) wafer surfaces by X-ray photoelectron and high-resolution electron energy loss-spectroscopy. Appl. Phys. A 39, 73– 82 (1986)

    1986

  62. [70]

    S., Motevaselian, M

    Zhou, S., Panse, K. S., Motevaselian, M. H., Alur u, N. R. & Zhang, Y. Three-Dimensional Molecular Mapping of Ionic Liquids at Electrified Interfaces. ACS Nano 14, 17515–17523 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Bonagiri, L. K. S. et al. Real-Space Charge Density Profiling of Electrode–Electrolyte Interfaces with Angstrom Depth Resolution. ACS Nano 16, 19594–19604 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Panse, K. S. et al. Innermost Ion Association Configuration Is a Key Structural Descriptor of Ionic Liquids at Electrified Interfaces. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 9464–9472 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    F., Martin-Jimenez, D

    Payam, A. F., Martin-Jimenez, D. & Garcia, R. Force reconstruction from tapping mode force microscopy experiments. Nanotechnology 26, 185706 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Quantitative measur ement of tip-sample interactions in amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy

    Hölscher, H. Quantitative measur ement of tip-sample interactions in amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 123109 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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