MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518699867 · doi:10.1149/ma2016-02/23/1707

(Invited) Parameter Identification in Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Applications: Analysis of Sensitivity

2016· article· en· W2518699867 on OpenAlexaff
M. Boinet, Cyril Condolf, Rémi Goulet, Bernard Tribollet, Vincent Vivier

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsSaint-Gobain (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDielectric spectroscopySensitivity (control systems)Identification (biology)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Electrical impedanceMaterials scienceElectrochemistryChemistryEngineeringElectrical engineeringChromatographyElectronic engineeringElectrodeBiologyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EIS is a powerful non-destructive technique that can access essential information about interfacial and bulk material parameters through the use of low energy time varying electrical excitations. When applied to an electrochemical system, IS can provide information on reaction parameters, corrosion rates [1], oxide characteristics, porosity, coating integrity [2-3], mass transport, and many other electrode/interface characteristics [4]. Software packages for the analysis of impedance data have also emerged [5–7]. The typical goal of an EIS experiment is to gather significant information regarding the physicochemical phenomena taking place in an electrochemical system, and the experimental data are then compared to a model that describes the system. The model can be purely empirical, being composed of resistors, capacitors, and generalized electrochemical elements, or otherwise it can be based on the physics of the system. Model parameters are evaluated through an inverse method. Minimization algorithms such as the Complex Non Linear Least Squares (CNLS) method, the Gauss-Newton method, the Levenberg-Marquardt method or the Downhill Simplex algorithm are used to determine the value of the parameters that minimize the sum of squared differences between the experimental and predicted data. Regardless of the method, the minimum value of the χ 2 statistic is commonly used to assess the quality of the regression. χ 2 is a non-weighted sum of squared differences: (1) In this equation, nf , Re, Im and |Z| represent the total number of frequencies constituting the impedance spectrum, the real and imaginary part and the modulus of the impedance, respectively. The subscripts e and c stand for the experimental and the calculated data, respectively. The standard deviation for the measurement is assumed to be Z= 0.01.|Z e | i.e. assuming a standard deviation for the impedance measurement of 1% of the modulus. For a complex regression, the fitting quality was determined by the standard deviation q. (2) Where n is the degree of freedom for the regression, i.e. , the number of observations 2n f minus the number of adjustable parameters. The Smaller χ 2 , the smaller the differences between the observed and modeled values and the better the fit. It is generally considered that a fit if satisfactory if the value of q is of the order of 1. A value smaller than 1 means that error was overestimated. χ 2 provides a useful single numerical value for assessing the quality of the regression, but χ 2 does not provide any information on the accuracy of the different parameters evaluated. It is important to know if and how much the model, and subsequently the χ 2 or q are sensitive to the different parameters. Hence the sensitivity to the different parameters provides information on the accuracy of the identification technique. In this communication, we will show the results of the sensitivity analysis performed on three model cases: a blocking electrode and the ferri/ferrocyanide system, silicon nitride thin layers. Confidence intervals (sensitivity) for the fitted parameters were estimated empirically from the change (of +/- 5%) in a single parameter value yielding an increase of the standard deviation q characterizing the fit quality, the other parameters staying fixed to their optimal value or unfixed in order to estimate interactions between parameters. Basically, if a confidence interval is very wide, the data doesn’t define that parameter very well, or that the model proposed is not optimum. If a confidence interval is very narrow, this parameter becomes an important parameter in the overall model. This approach is helpful in order to evaluate the robustness of the model and to validate the physical interpretation of model Parameters. Keywords : electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, regression model, sensitivity, confidence interval References [1] Srisuwan, N., Ochoa, N., Pébère, N., Tribollet, B., Corrosion Science, Volume 50, Issue 5, May 2008, p 1245-1250 [2] NACE 2012 March 11 – Technology Exchange Group 097X, Electrochemical Measurements [3] Introduction to Corrosion Science, E. McCafferty [4] M.E. Orazem, B. Tribollet, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy, The Electrochemical Society, Series, Ed. Wiley, 2008. [5] B.A. Boukamp, Solid State Ionics 18–19 (1986) 136. [6] J.R. Macdonald, L.D. Potter Jr., Solid State Ionics 24 (1987) 61. [7] J.R. Macdonald, CNLS (Complex Nonlinear Least Squares) lmmittance Fitting, Program LEVM Manual, Houston, TX, Version 7.11 Edition, 1999. Figure 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207