Active Form of Ru for the CH[sub 3]OH Electro-oxidation Reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, unsupported Pt ∕ Ru catalysts are used to address the issue of Ru oxide involvement during the methanol oxidation reaction, from the point of view of both Ru “oxidation state” (metal vs oxide) and amount of Ru oxide. It is shown that a simple electrochemical method is useful as in situ probe for the Ru oxidation state. The method also yields insight into the Pt to Ru site distribution of the catalyst surface. The results indicate that the electrochemical formation of reversibly reducible Ru oxides is effectively suppressed in C H 3 O H solutions, most probably because of its involvement in the anodic oxidation reaction to C O 2 . In the case of PtRu alloys that consist of surfaces of well-distributed Pt to Ru sites, Ru oxides are not detected on this surface for C H 3 O H concentrations greater than 0.1 M . It is also shown that the electrochemical formation of Ru oxides at the potential of interest prior to the C H 3 O H oxidation reaction deenhances the catalyst activity for C H 3 O H oxidation. However, the experiments suggest the deenhancement is low ( < 5 % at 0.6 and < 15 % at 0.8 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode) and only observed at potentials equal to or more positive than 0.6 V .
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".