MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proposition of a New Power Dissipation Model and Its Analytic Formulation for Electric-Field-Driven Water Dissociation in the Cationic/ Anionic Bipolar Polymer Membranes Junctions

2025· preprint· W4416932774 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohamed Fadel Anass Ma-El-Ainine, Rachid Boukhili, O. Savadogo

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDissipationQuadratic equationDissipative systemDissociation (chemistry)HeterolysisPolymerFormalism (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bipolar Polymer Membranes (BPMs) enable the creation of large, stable pH gradients by drivingwater dissociation (WD) at the cation/anion junction under reverse bias, a process central to electrodialysis, CO₂ capture, and emerging acid–alkaline water electrolysis. Yet, despite decades of study, the mechanism by which intense interfacial electric fields accelerate WD remains debated and is often modeled with ad hoc assumptions. Here, we outline key limitations of existing models of field-enhanced WD in BPMs and we present a power-dissipation model and its formalism that address them. In this new framework, we emphasize that minority ions from water autoprotolysis act as carriers that continuously dissipate field-supplied power in the hydrated nanometric junction. This dissipative input raises the local probability of heterolytic O–H bond cleavage and leads analytically to the dissociation rate’s quadratic dependence on the field. Without adjustable parameters, the model reproduces the required orders of magnitude for the enhancement ratio kd(E)/kd(0), where kd(E) is the field-enhanced water-dissociation rate constant and kd(0) its zero-field value, across typical BPM fields and yields a quadratic current–voltage junction law. A proof-of-principle measurement on a commercial Fumasep® FBM confirms the quadratic current–voltage​ trend, supporting a power dissipation field-driven WD and providing a concise, falsifiable baseline for future 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207