Effect of Redox Mediators on Corrosion Behavior and Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) is widely used to measure local electrochemical reactivity of corroding surfaces. A major criticism of using SECM in feedback mode for corrosion studies is the requirement of an external redox mediator (RM) as it could react with the metal and affect the Nernst potential at the metal–solution interface. Consequently, it becomes challenging to differentiate the interference caused by the RM from the local reactivity of the metal. Herein, a multiscale electrochemical approach is presented to investigate the effect of RM choice on the corroding substrate. Two common RMs, ferrocenemethanol and hexaammineruthenium(III) chloride, were used to perform SECM over copper and aluminum. It was found during macroscale electrochemical measurements that Ru(NH) 6 3+ acted as an oxidant and promoted corrosion. The SECM feedback behavior varied for copper depending on the RM used, suggesting that the corrosion reactions controlled the negative feedback mechanism, not the formation of an insulating passive film. The passivated aluminum surface consistently exhibited negative feedback, regardless of the RM used. SECM approach curves also displayed a distortion in the steady state current, which was caused by the deposition of substrate-generated species on the microelectrode. These deviations in feedback response were accounted for during analysis through incorporation into a finite element model to accurately extract the RM kinetic rate constants. The importance of understanding these processes is highlighted to avoid misinterpretation of passive behavior and advances toward a more quantitative use of SECM for corrosion studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".