MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413781668 · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c00125

Impact of Li/Na/K Nitrate Electrolytes on Commercial Photoelectrochemical Oxygen Demand Devices

2025· article· en· W4413781668 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel Pennings, E. B. O’Donnell, Emma Schlatter, Katrina Suichies, Samantha Wheadon, Bersu Baştuğ Azer, Ahmet Gülsaran, Michael A. Pope, Mustafa Yavuz

Bibliographic record

VenueACS ES&T Water · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMantech (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersMitacs
KeywordsNitrateElectrolyteOxygenInorganic chemistryChemistryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the influence of nitrate-based electrolytes─specifically LiNO 3, NaNO 3, and KNO 3 ─on the performance, reproducibility, and operational efficiency of Photoelectrochemical Oxygen Demand (PeCOD) devices. A systematic evaluation was conducted across three operational concentration ranges to identify the interplay between ionic conductivity, charge transport dynamics, and reaction kinetics. The findings reveal that each electrolyte exhibits distinct advantages depending on the concentration regime, with KNO 3 offering superior conductivity and sensitivity in the high-concentration regimes, while preserving equivalent stability and reproducibility under lower concentration conditions than the alternatives. Modeling and analysis of the reaction rates highlight intrinsic electrolyte-specific variations which play a role in the overall sensitivity and selectivity of the system. These insights have significant implications for optimizing PeCOD devices in commercial and environmental applications, paving the way for further innovations in water quality monitoring and related fields.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS ES&T WaterSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207