Effects of type of binder and conducting phase on the performance of solid‐state electrochemiluminescence composites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemiluminescence (ECL) of tris(2,2-bipyridyl)ruthenium [Ru(bpy)3 ](2+) has received much attention. By immobilizing [Ru(bpy)3 ](2+) on an electrode surface, solid-state ECL has several advantages over solution-phase ECL, such as reduced amounts of costly reagent and a simplified experimental design. Herein, different types of solid-state ECL sensors were fabricated and the performances of paraffin oil and two ionic liquids (ILs) as the binders were compared for the construction of solid-state ECL. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), CCD camera, UV-vis, fluorescence spectroscopy, electrochemistry and ECL were applied to characterize and evaluate the performance of the solid-state composites. According to the obtained results, Ru-graphite/IL octyl pyridinium hexaflurophosphate (OPPF6 ) was introduced as a new solid-state ECL with excellent properties such as simple preparation, low background current, fast electron-transfer rate and good reproducibility and stability. Moreover, for a study of the effect of carbon structure on the performance of the electrode, graphite was replaced by multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and Ru-MWCNT/OPPF6 was constructed and its efficiency was compared with Ru-graphite/OPPF6 composite electrode.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it