Print‐and‐Plate Architected Electrodes for Electrochemical Transformations Under Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flow cell electrodes are typically composed of porous carbon materials, such as papers, felts, and cloths. However, their random architecture hinders the fundamental characterization of electrode structure‐performance relationships during in situ operation of porous electrochemical flow systems. This work describes a “print‐and‐plate” method that combines direct ink writing of micro‐periodic lattices with a two‐step metal plating process that converts them into highly conductive (sheet resistance 40 mΩ sq −1 ) electrodes. Their operando performance is assessed in an anthraquinone disulfonic acid half‐cell using widefield electrochemical fluorescence microscopy, where output current and fluorescence intensity are in excellent agreement. The pressure drop associated with flow through three electrode designs is determined via simulations from which the most efficient design is identified and manufactured via print‐and‐plate. Confocal fluorescence microscopy is then used to create a 3D map of the state of charge (SOC) inside this print‐and‐plate electrode. The experimental state of the charge map is in good agreement with computational predictions. The rapid design, simulation, and fabrication of print‐and‐plate electrodes enable fundamental investigations of how architected porosity affects electrochemical performance under flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".