Understanding Potential Decay during OCV Hold via Dry Recovery Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly ∼100 mV of open circuit voltage (OCV) decay is observed in the first 24 h of a typical OCV hold test for assessing the chemical durability of a polymer electrolyte. Significant recovery of this OCV loss has been achieved by subjecting the cell to so-called wet recovery process by lowering the cell potential often under over-humidified conditions, thereby confounding the effect of potential reduction and catalyst/ionomer interfacial reorganization due to humidification. In this work by applying a dry recovery protocol (30% RH) comprising 30 min of lower potential hold in the H2/N2 environment followed by the H2/Air environment, OCV recovery of 82%, 73%, 62% and 58 was achieved by holding potentials at 0.13, 0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 V, respectively. Small changes in electrochemically active surface area and hydrogen cross-over rate observed 48 h cannot explain the nearly 100 mV OCV. The wet recovery process (low potential and 100% RH) resulted in 85% recovery of ∼100 mV of lost OCV implying oxide coverage increase as the dominant factor for sharp OCV decay. Further, it is shown that cross-over hydrogen is not fully oxidized at OCV-like conditions (>0.6 V), highlighting the need to quantify potential-dependent crossover current for OCV decay models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".