Scanning electrochemical microscopy screening of CO2 electroreduction activities and product selectivities of catalyst arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The electroreduction of CO2 is one of the most investigated reactions and involves testing a large number and variety of catalysts. The majority of experimental electrocatalysis studies use conventional one-sample-at-a-time methods without providing spatially resolved catalytic activity information. Herein, we present the application of scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) for simultaneous screening of different catalysts forming an array. We demonstrate the potential of this method for electrocatalytic assessment of an array consisting of three Sn/SnOx catalysts for CO2 reduction to formate (CO2RF). Simultaneous SECM scans with fast scan (1 V s−1) cyclic voltammetry detection of products (HCOO−, CO and H2) at the Pt ultramicroelectrode tip were performed. We were able to consistently distinguish the electrocatalytic activities of the three compositionally and morphologically different Sn/SnOx catalysts. Further development of this technique for larger catalyst arrays and matrices coupled with machine learning based algorithms could greatly accelerate the CO2 electroreduction catalyst discovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".