What Happens to the Thiolates Created by Reductively Desorbing SAMs? An in Situ Study Using Fluorescence Microscopy and Electrochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situ examination of the reductive desorption process for Au microelectrodes modified with a thiol self-assembled monolayer (SAM) using fluorescence microscopy enabled the study of the fate of the desorbed thiolate species. The Bodipy labeled alkyl-thiol SAM, when adsorbed, is not fluorescent due to quenching by the Au surface. Once reductively desorbed, the thiolate molecules fluoresce and their direction and speed are monitored. At moderately negative reduction potentials, the thiolate species hemispherically diffuse away from the microelectrode. Also observed is the influence of a closely positioned counter electrode on the direction of the desorbed thiolate movement. As the potential becomes more negative, the molecules move in an upward direction, with a speed that depends on the amount of dissolved H(2) produced by water reduction. Shown is that this motion is controlled, in large part, by the change in the electrolyte density near the electrode due to dissolved H(2). These results should help in explaining the extent of readsorption at oxidative potentials observed in cyclic voltammetry (CV) reductive desorption measurements, as well as improving the general understanding of the SAM removal process by reductive desorption. The electrogenerated H(2) was also shown to be able to reductively remove the thiol SAM from the Pt/Ir particles that decorate the microelectrode glass sheath.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".