Potential Oscillations during the Electrocatalytic Oxidation of Sulfide on a Microstructured Ti/Ta<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>-IrO<sub>2</sub> Electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrooxidation of sulfide on a microstructured oxide electrode Ti/Ta 2 O 5 −IrO 2 was studied using electrochemical methods such as cyclic voltammetry, differential capacity, galvanostatic measurements and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Sulfide and hydrosulfide can be oxidized to sulfur, polysulfides, and sulfate depending upon the electrode potential. Our surface analysis illustrates that the Ti/Ta 2 O 5 −IrO 2 electrode prepared in this study has a “cracked mud” structure with oxide particles sitting on the top of the electrode surface which have a particle size of around 100 nm. For the first time, two distinct galvanostatic potential oscillations, named as Oscillation A and Oscillation B, respectively, are observed during the electrooxidation of sulfide on an oxide electrode. The features of the potential oscillations strongly depend on the applied current densities. Oscillation A, located in the low current region, has larger amplitudes and much smaller frequencies than Oscillation B, which occurs in the high current region. Our EIS studies show that both Oscillation A and Oscillation B can be classified into HNDR (hidden negative differential resistance) oscillators with oxygen evolution involved. Oscillation A is caused by the variation of the S 2- /HS - surface concentration from the diffusion-limited depletion by oxidation and from the convection-induced replenishment by periodic oxygen evolution, while Oscillation B is due to the synergic effect of sulfur formation/removal and constant oxygen evolution.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".