In Situ Electrochemical Analysis of Surface Layers on a Pyrrhotite Electrode in Hydrochloric Acid Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study considers the electrochemical dissolution of pyrrhotite electrodes in 1 M HCl solution. Conventional electrochemical techniques as well as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and in situ Mott–Schottky analysis have been applied for surface studies during the anodic dissolution of the electrode. EIS results showed the formation of two distinct surface layers on the electrode. The first layer forms during sample preparation and is stable up to around 600 mV vs saturated calomel electrode (SCE). The second layer starts to form at high anodic potentials ( vs SCE). Electrochemically active dissolution of the pyrrhotite occurs between the formation potential of the two surface layers (600–670 mV vs SCE). Mott–Schottky plots showed that both of the layers are n-type semiconductors with quite different donor densities. Moreover, the second surface layer is less conductive than the first and thus hinders the dissolution current more effectively. Three different equivalent electrochemical circuits were modeled for different dissolution potential ranges and the model regression results was compared to the experimental results of the EIS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".