Adsorption-Based Electrochemical Detection of Nonelectrochemically Active Analytes for Capillary Electrophoresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sensitive electrochemical detection method (ECD) for capillary electrophoresis has been developed that is applicable to a much wider range of analytes than more conventional ECD methods. Using a modified Osteryoung square-wave voltammetry method, the adsorption of what are normally considered nonelectrochemically active analytes onto a platinum electrode was found to produce a concentration-proportional response. Although the mechanisms that cause this response may be complex, it appears that it is due to changes in the electrode/solution interface that accompany adsorption of the analyte onto the electrode rather than a simple redox process. Analytes that possess pi-electron density appeared to chemisorb rather than only physically adsorb onto the electrode and gave the best response with detection limits of < 10(-8) M while maintaining good linearity. Because this detection method requires only that the analyte adsorb onto the electrode, it has the advantage of much wider applicability than previously reported electrochemical detection methods. The applicability of this detection method was investigated for a variety of analytes and background electrolyte conditions (varied pH, ionic strength, buffer additives). Comparisons of the sensitivity of this method to UV detection showed that, even for analytes that have good UV chromophores, sensitivities greater than 1 order of magnitude were obtained using adsorption-based electrochemical detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".