Barrier-Layer-Mediated Electron Transfer from Semiconductor Electrodes to Molecules in Solution: Sensitivity of Mechanism to Barrier-Layer Thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron transfer (ET) phenomena at and near semiconductor/molecule interfaces are of fundamental significance for applications involving liquid-junction photovoltaics, organic photovoltaics, and electrochemical heterogeneous catalysis. To probe mechanisms of electron delivery through barrier layers at such interfaces, we make use of atomic layer deposition to deposit ultrathin films of TiO 2 conformally onto SnO 2 electrodes. In the presence of TiO 2 films (i.e., barrier layers) up to 10 Å thick, electrons are delivered from the electrode to molecules in solution by tunneling through the layers, as evidenced, in part, by an exponential decrease in ET rate with layer thickness. For films thicker than 10 Å, there is little change in ET rate as a function of TiO 2 thickness. To our surprise, thermally annealing a 55 Å layer of TiO 2 on SnO 2 yielded a 10-fold decrease in ET rate compared to that imposed by the as-deposited layer. At applied potentials near the conduction-band edge of SnO 2, and significantly below the band edge of TiO 2, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy with nominally flat, as-deposited TiO 2 indicates the presence of nearly twice the density of electronic states as found with air-annealed samples. These and related observations point to a barrier-layer-thickness-dependent change in the mechanism of electron delivery, from the underlying electrode to solution species, from one based on tunneling to one entailing trap-facilitated hopping. The findings have design implications for the application of interfacial barrier layers to electrochemical and photoelectrochemical problems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".