ArticleScientific reports2026
Influence of CuSO
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ni/Cu–P composite coatings were fabricated on Q235 steel substrates with dimensions of 20 mm×15 mm×2 mm by introducing different CuSO4 concentrations (0–0.30 g/L) into the Ni–P plating bath, denoted as SCU-0, SCU-0.1, SCU-0.15, SCU-0.2, and SCU-0.3, respectively. The effects of Cu addition on the structural, mechanical, magnetic, and corrosion properties were systematically investigated. The SCU-0.15 coating, deposited with 0.15 g/L CuSO₄, exhibited the most compact microstructure with a Cu content of 1.28 wt% and a thickness of 68.7 μm. TEM analysis confirmed that amorphous phosphorus was uniformly distributed in the Ni/Cu solid-solution matrix, forming nanosized grains (~ 34.6 nm) that improved structural uniformity. Compared with the undoped Ni–P coating (447.6 HV), the SCU-0.15 coating showed a markedly enhanced hardness of 713.5 HV and the lowest wear loss. The saturation magnetization decreased from 443 to 284 emu/cc as the CuSO₄ concentration increased from 0.1 to 0.3 g/L. Electrochemical testing in 15 wt% HNO₃ revealed that the SCU-0.15 coating possessed the most positive corrosion potential and the lowest corrosion current density (30.79 µA/cm²). Its charge-transfer resistance reached 4678.4 Ω·cm², and the largest Nyquist arc radius further confirmed superior corrosion protection. Overall, moderate Cu incorporation refined grains, strengthened the Ni–P matrix, and significantly improved the hardness, wear resistance, and corrosion durability of the coatings, demonstrating an effective route to optimize Ni-P coating performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.