MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386127623 · doi:10.11159/icnfa23.125

Molecular Dynamics Simulation as a Tool for Studying the Solvent in the Dye/TiO2 Interaction in Natural Dye Sensitized Solar Cells

2023· article· en· W4386127623 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Quintana

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica
KeywordsDye-sensitized solar cellMolecular dynamicsSolventDynamics (music)Chemical physicsMaterials sciencePhotochemistryChemistryPhysicsComputational chemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work focuses on studying the interaction between a natural dye, cyanidin-3-glucoside, and the TiO2 surface in sensitized solar cells. Molecular dynamics simulations based on the reactive force field ReaxFF were employed to investigate these interactions. Various solvent environments based on water and ethanol proportions were examined. The simulation results reveal that dye chemisorption always occurs, but with differences depending on the solvent used. A more favorable stability and Ti-O bond distance were observed in systems with solvent ratios of 1:1 and 1:3, suggesting improved dye loading under these conditions. Additionally, sensitized solar cells were prepared using the same solvents utilized in the simulation, and current-voltage and IPCE measurements were performed. It was found that cells prepared with the more stable solvent ratios exhibit higher photocurrent and efficiency. Overall, the results from the molecular simulation are in agreement with the experimental data, indicating its potential for predicting the optimal solvents to use in the preparation of natural dyes based on anthocyanins.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on New TechnologiesSame topicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar CellsFrench-language works237,207