Effect of Substrate on Polyaniline Film Properties A Cyclic Voltammetry and Impedance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemical properties of polyaniline (PANI) films, grown using multicycling methods, but using two different upper limits, have been examined in detail at three different substrates [Au, Pt, and glassy carbon (GC)]. Overall, type I films are only weakly dependent on the substrate employed. Even so, impedance measurements have shown that type I PANI films (grown by cycling between 0 and ca . 1 V in ), formed on Pt and Au, exhibit the most rapid growth rate, while the highest film pseudocapacitance per unit charge is seen for Pt substrates. Type I PANI has a porosity of 45–50% when formed on Pt and Au, but the porosity is much higher ( ca. 77%) on GC, inversely correlated with film growth rate. The substrate has a more pronounced effect on the electrochemical properties of type II PANI films (grown by cycling between 0 and 1.7 V in solution). This is because type I films are formed at potentials at which PANI is conducting, while type II are formed primarily when PANI is insulating. Therefore, type I film growth occurs predominantly at the conducting PANI/solution interface, while growth of type II films occurs primarily at the underlying metal/solution interface, causing the substrate properties to become more significant. The growth rate of type II PANI is most rapid on GC, due to the absence of a barrier oxide film, vs . on Pt and Au. © 2000 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".