MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145666711 · doi:10.1515/pac-2014-5026

Defining the transfer coefficient in electrochemistry: An assessment (IUPAC Technical Report)

2014· article· en· W2145666711 on OpenAlexaff
Rolando Guidelli, Richard G. Compton, Juan M. Feliú, E. Gileadi, Jacek Lipkowski, Wolfgang Schmickler, Sergio Trasatti

Bibliographic record

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCharge transfer coefficientElectron transferElectrochemistryElectrodeChemical nomenclatureSign (mathematics)Reaction rate constantStandard electrode potentialAnodeKinetic energyTransfer (computing)ElectronAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryKineticsOrganic chemistryQuantum mechanicsCyclic voltammetryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The transfer coefficient α is a quantity that is commonly employed in the kinetic investigation of electrode processes. In the 3 rd edition of the IUPAC Green Book, the cathodic transfer coefficient α c is defined as –( RT / nF )( d ln k c /d E ), where k c is the electroreduction rate constant, E is the applied potential, and R, T , and F have their usual significance. This definition is equivalent to the other, -( RT / nF )( d ln| j c |/d E ), where j c is the cathodic current density corrected for any changes in the reactant concentration at the electrode surface with respect to its bulk value. The anodic transfer coefficient α a is defined similarly, by simply replacing j c with the anodic current density j a and the minus sign with the plus sign. It is shown that this definition applies only to an electrode reaction that consists of a single elementary step involving the simultaneous uptake of n electrons from the electrode in the case of α c , or their release to the electrode in the case of α a . However, an elementary step involving the simultaneous release or uptake of more than one electron is regarded as highly improbable in view of the absolute rate theory of electron transfer of Marcus; the hardly satisfiable requirements for the occurrence of such an event are examined. Moreover, the majority of electrode reactions do not consist of a single elementary step; rather, they are multistep, multi-electron processes. The uncritical application of the above definitions of α c and α a has led researchers to provide unwarranted mechanistic interpretations of electrode reactions. In fact, the only directly measurable experimental quantity is d ln| j |/d E , which can be made dimensionless upon multiplication by RT / F , yielding ( RT / F )( d ln| j |/d E ). One common source of misinterpretation consists in setting this experimental quantity equal to αn , according to the above definition of the transfer coefficient, and in trying to estimate n from αn , upon ascribing an arbitrary value to α , often close to 0.5. The resulting n value is then identified with the number of electrons involved in a hypothetical rate-determining step or with that involved in the overall electrode reaction. A few examples of these unwarranted mechanistic interpretations are reported. In view of the above considerations, it is proposed to define the cathodic and anodic transfer coefficients by the quantities α c = –( RT / F )( d ln| j c |/d E ) and α a = ( RT / F )( d ln j a /d E ), which are independent of any mechanistic consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations516
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure and Applied ChemistrySame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207