2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2020.102346
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent advances in electrochemical techniques for characterizing surface properties of minerals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the main techniques to characterize nanoengineered platforms include electrochemical and physiochemical techniques such as CV, EIS, and DPV to characterize electrochemical behavior and electron transfer; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to characterize the composition and surface chemistry; scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to characterize morphology and composition; and dynamic light scattering (DLS) to determine the surface properties, summarized in Table 2 [151].…”
Section: Characterization Of Nanobioengineered Platformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the main techniques to characterize nanoengineered platforms include electrochemical and physiochemical techniques such as CV, EIS, and DPV to characterize electrochemical behavior and electron transfer; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to characterize the composition and surface chemistry; scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to characterize morphology and composition; and dynamic light scattering (DLS) to determine the surface properties, summarized in Table 2 [151].…”
Section: Characterization Of Nanobioengineered Platformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the lack of employed potential, the steel substrate potential might differ with time due to the surface nature of steel, which can be changed because of the anodic and cathodic spontaneous reactions. However, the OCP vs. time could be altered owing to the development of the passive film, oxidation, or resistance [34]. Figure 6A demonstrates the OCP vs. time in 15% HCl solution for blank X60-steel and coated specimens with various ratios of CeO2@gelatin at 50 °C.…”
Section: Ocp Vs Time and Tafel Polarizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the lack of employed potential, the steel substrate potential might differ with time due to the surface nature of steel, which can be changed because of the anodic and cathodic spontaneous reactions. However, the OCP vs. time could be altered owing to the development of the passive film, oxidation, or resistance [34]. Figure 6A demonstrates the OCP vs. time in 15% HCl solution for blank X60-steel and coated specimens with various ratios of CeO 2 @gelatin at 50 • C. All coated specimens at the initial time of dipping are shifted to more positive potential compared with the pristine X60-steel substrate, which confirms that the samples of coated X60-steel are in the passive state and, consequently, are protected from the chloride corrosive medium [35].…”
Section: Ocp Vs Time and Tafel Polarizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basis for species differences are pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic ( Toutain et al, 2010 ). While kinetic variables include explicit differences in the rate and extent of ADME, the species-dependent variables in dynamic response such as drug/chemical binding to receptors or enzymes and subsequent stress-response pathways in the culture models are implicitly assumed to be the same as for in vivo models ( Zeng et al, 2020; Wang et al, 2021 ). This may provide a predictive advantage for human over rodent models, and furthermore for the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from different human donors to assess the potential for individual variability.…”
Section: Relevance To Principles Of Developmental Toxicologymentioning
confidence: 99%