Identification and Analysis of Electrochemical Instrumentation Limitations through the Study of Platinum Surface Oxide Formation and Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anodic polarization of Pt electrodes in aqueous H2SO4 leads to the formation of a surface oxide (PtO). Herein, the surface oxide growth is accomplished using three different approaches: (i) chronoamperometry (CA); (ii) chronocoulometry (CC); and (iii) a combination of cyclic voltammetry (CV) and CA. The PtO reduction is accomplished potentiodynamically using voltammetry. The oxide growth takes place at defined polarization potentials (E(p)), polarization times (t(p)), and temperatures (T). The oxide charge density (q(ox)) is determined for both the formation (q(ox,form)) and reduction (q(ox,red)) processes. The oxide reduction CV profiles are integrated to determine the charge density values for oxide reduction (q(ox,red,CV)) which are compared with the q(ox,form,CA) and q(ox,form,CC) values. The values of q(ox,form,CC) are greater than those of q(ox,form,CA), but both potentiotatic methods (CA and CC) produce q(ox,form) values that are consistently lower than those of q(ox,red,CV). In the case of oxide formation with combined CV and CA, the values of q(ox,form,CV+CA) are found to be lower than the values of q(ox,red,CV), although the difference is small. Electrochemical quartz crystal nanobalance (EQCN) is used to monitor the mass variation at the electrode surface during the oxide formation and reduction process at E(p) = 1.20 V with various t(p) values. Equal mass changes during oxide formation and reduction are detected by the EQCN. The nature of the differences in q(ox,form) and q(ox,red) encountered with the different experimental methods are discussed in terms of instrumental limitations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".