4.8 Article

Quantitative Feedback Referencing for Improved Kinetic Fitting of Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy Measurements

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 94, Issue 40, Pages 13852-13859

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.2c02498

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSERC Discovery program
  2. [RGPIN-2020-04609]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) is a mature technique for studying local electrochemical processes, but conventional methods do not fully utilize its spatial resolution. The developed quantitative feedback referencing (QFR) method improves fitting accuracy, eliminates fitting subjectivity, and avoids substrate-microelectrode contact.
Scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) has matured as a technique for studying local electrochemical processes. The feedback mode is most commonly used for extracting quantitative kinetic information. However, approaching individual regions of interest, as is commonly done, does not take full advantage of the spatial resolution that SECM has to offer. Moreover, fitting of experimental approach curves remains highly subjective due to the manner of estimating the tip-to-substrate distance. We address these issues using negative or positive feedback currents as a reference to calculate the tip-to-substrate distance directly for quantitative kinetic fitting of approach curves and line profiles. The method was first evaluated by fitting simulated data and then tested experimentally by resolving negative feedback and intermediate kinetics behavior in a spatially controlled fashion using (i) a flat, binary substrate composed of Au and SiO2 segments and (ii) a dual-mediator system for live-cell measurements. The methodology developed herein, named quantitative feedback referencing (QFR), improves fitting accuracy, removes fitting subjectivity, and avoids substrate-microelectrode contact.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available