Abstract
Several aspects of a recent paper [McGrath, A. C. et al., Hyp. Interact. 139/40 (2002), 471] have been criticised by Klauber [Klauber, C., Hyp. Interact. 155 (2004), 65]. Although some of the points in Klauber [Klauber, C., Hyp. Interact. 155 (2004), 65] are shown to be incorrect, we show that a further analysis of the data in McGrath et al. [McGrath, A. C. et al., Hyp. Interact. 139/40 (2002), 471] does lend support to Klauber's tetramer model for the AuCN species on activated carbon, but not necessarily for its method of bonding.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have