Reactions of Bromide and Iodide Ions with Silver Oxide Films on Ag Substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversion of an Ag 2 O film on a Ag substrate to AgX in a halide solution occurs via three competing reaction pathways: (1) chemisorption of a halide ion, X − (aq) onto Ag 2 O followed by reaction to form AgX, (2) electrochemical oxidation of the Ag in the metal substrate to form AgX coupled with reduction of Ag 2 O to form Ag, and (3) dissolution of Ag 2 O followed by reaction of Ag + (aq) with X − (aq) to form AgX(aq) and deposition of the AgX. In this study, Ag 2 O films of different thicknesses were grown potentiostatically on Ag electrodes in 0.01 M NaOH solutions. Reactions of the Ag 2 O films with halide ions were initiated by transferring the electrodes into 0.01 M NaOH solutions containing I − or Br − . The reactions were followed by monitoring the open circuit potential (E OC ) on the Ag electrode. The open circuit potential shows a sharp change upon completion of the reaction and this allows an easy determination of the reaction time. The reaction time as a function of halide concentration, the Ag 2 O film thickness, and the electrode rotation rate was measured to determine reaction kinetics parameters. Additionally, potentiodynamic and galvanostatic reduction of the AgX film was measured. The data from these different measurements were used to elucidate the contributions of the three pathways to the overall conversion process.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".