Response Characteristics of an Amperometric NOx-O2 Sensor at Non diffusion-Rate-Determining Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental results are combined with a physical understanding of an amperometric NOx-O2 sensor to study the effect of three main operating parameters on the sensor behavior in non diffusion-rate-determining operating conditions. The sensor response to NOx concentration is examined over a range of sensor operating temperatures, reference cell potentials, and second sensing cell potentials. The results show that the sensor sensitivity increases gradually with the sensing cell voltage while the sensor output is almost linearly dependent on NOx concentration for cell voltages higher than ≈ 0.25 V. The results also reveal that reducing the reference cell potential from the typical cell potential (0.42 V) reduces the sensor cross-sensitivity to O2 particularly at high NOx concentrations (>600 [ppm]). The results of this work provide a better understanding of the sensor behavior at different operating conditions which can be used to design new accurate sensors with different sensitivities to a variety of species in the exhaust gas. This improved understanding of the sensor has the potential to remove cross-sensitivity for emission measurements of gases containing NOx and other species in the exhaust gas such as ammonia and unburned hydrocarbons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".