Chronopotentiometric Approach in Scanning Electrochemical Cell Microscopy: Minimizing Surface Change Upon Landing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In single-channel scanning electrochemical cell microscopy, the pipette usually approaches the sample surface by applying a potential while simultaneously monitoring the current. The movement of the pipette is halted once the transient current reaches a set threshold, indicating droplet-surface contact. In corrosion studies, it has been reported that the transient current can affect subsequent electrochemical measurements by polarizing the metal surface. Herein, a chronopotentiometric approach method, which involves applying a constant zero current and simultaneously monitoring the potential, is compared with the typical chronoamperometric approach method. The surface change is minimized when the chronoamperometric approach method is used, as confirmed by extracting the charge transfer resistance from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in scanning electrochemical cell microscopy. This study demonstrates that the chronopotentiometric approach method with a zero approach current alleviates the risks of changing the surface of interest. It highlights the capability of scanning electrochemical cell microscopy to investigate the properties of pristine surfaces, thereby extending the potential applications of this technique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".