コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 duction (E degrees = +3 to +154 mV vs normal hydrogen electrode).
2 tive redox potential (-3.040 V vs a standard hydrogen electrode).
3 ial ( approximately 3.040 V vs. the standard hydrogen electrode).
4 an onset potential of -0.2 V (vs reversible hydrogen electrode).
5 m 2.2% to 8.4% at 1.23 V vs. RHE (Reversible hydrogen electrode).
6 ied surface (0.19 +/- 0.13 V versus standard hydrogen electrode).
7 f about -1.7 (+/-0.2) V at 1 M versus normal hydrogen electrode.
8 ion potential of -344 mV versus the standard hydrogen electrode.
9 s of -486 mV and -644 mV versus the standard hydrogen electrode.
10 potentials of only -0.5 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
11 easured in acetone, and was 1.36 V vs normal hydrogen electrode.
12 ficiency (~96%) at -0.29 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
13 R current density at 1.7 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
14 respectively at -1.0 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode.
15 7% in H-cell at -0.7 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode.
16 d CH(4) at -1.2 +/- 0.02 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode.
17 (-1) mg(cat)(-1)) at 0.0 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
18 carbon products at -1.43 V versus the normal hydrogen electrode.
19 from 0.30 to 2.67 at 0.4 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
20 y of 1035 mA cm(-2) at -0.2 V vs. Reversible Hydrogen Electrode.
21 1) (3.0 s(BET)(-1)) at 1.50 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode.
22 ficiency of 82% at -0.21 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode.
23 t density at only 0.53 V versus a reversible hydrogen electrode.
24 ode potential of -0.536 V vs. the reversible hydrogen electrode.
25 +/- 3 mV to 1200 +/- 3 mV versus the normal hydrogen electrode.
26 uction potential of -2.37 V vs. the standard hydrogen electrode.
27 ; pH 7.0) of 1095 +/- 4 mV versus the normal hydrogen electrode.
28 ode potential of -0.15 V versus the standard hydrogen electrode.
29 stability even at <-0.2 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode.
30 down to approximately -1.2 V vs the standard hydrogen electrode.
31 ential of only -0.15 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode.
32 from a freshwater pond at +0.6 V vs standard hydrogen electrode.
33 3.05 A mgPt(-1) at 0.9 V versus a reversible hydrogen electrode.
34 rying from - 1.4 V to 1.5 V vs. the standard hydrogen electrode.
35 tentials as low as -145 mV vs the reversible hydrogen electrode.
36 of either +2.2 V or +3.0 V versus the normal hydrogen electrode.
37 everal potentials above +1.9 V versus normal hydrogen electrode.
38 wide potential range (1.2 to 0.4 V vs normal hydrogen electrode), a range spanning potentials where P
39 talytic onset at 0.8 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode, a Tafel slope of 109 mV decade(-1),
40 n 15 h at -1 V applied potential vs standard hydrogen electrode, a time scale and efficiency suitable
41 w overpotential of -0.22 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode, along with a substantial urea produc
42 ty of 370 muA cm(-2) at 0.3 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode among current cocatalyst-free organic
43 ity of ~260 muA cm(-2) at 0 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode among the structurally-defined cocata
44 evolution (over +1 V against the reversible hydrogen electrode), among the best of classical semicon
45 w potential of -0.41 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode and a peak production rate of 16.6 mA
46 half-wave potential of 0.91 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode and outstanding durability (92 % curr
47 e potential of 0.8 +/- 0.1 V vs the standard hydrogen electrode and remains pH-independent on the rev
48 s were compared directly to the conventional hydrogen electrode and silver-silver chloride electrode
49 centimetre (at 1.5 volts versus a reversible hydrogen electrode) and a cathodic-side (half-cell) ethy
50 low onset potential of 1.47 V (vs reversible hydrogen electrode) and a stable current density of 10.0
51 uitable redox potential (-0.34 V vs standard hydrogen electrode) and dendrite-free plating process, w
52 l (E(1/2)) of 0.938 V versus RHE (reversible hydrogen electrode) and robust stability (DeltaE(1/2) =
53 ntered at approximately 0 V (versus standard hydrogen electrode), and was altered in single (Deltaomc
54 lie within the range 1.9-2.1 V vs reversible hydrogen electrode, and k1(f) varies from 2 x 10(3) to 4
55 ts (FE(C(2+))) at ~-0.99 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode, and the corresponding mass activity
56 iciency reaches 98% at -0.4 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode, and the FE stays stable from -0.4 to
57 (red.) approximately = -0.08 V versus normal hydrogen electrode] and forms a long-lived pi-radical ca
62 process centered around +174 mV vs. standard hydrogen electrode at pH 7 to a Mo(V)-to-Mo(IV) conversi
63 ferrous/ferric couple (-134 mV versus normal hydrogen electrode at pH 7) is consistent with the perox
66 y low midpoint potential (-248 mV vs. normal hydrogen electrode at pH 9.0), which is strongly coupled
67 on of Fe protein was -430 mV versus standard hydrogen electrode, coinciding with the midpoint potenti
68 f-wave potential of ~ 0.775 V vs. Reversible hydrogen electrode, comparable with that of commercial 2
69 s show a redox signal at 40 mV versus normal hydrogen electrode, consistent with electron transfer to
70 of -5 mA cm(-2) at 0.4 V vs. the reversible hydrogen electrode during simulated solar light irradiat
71 about -0.8 (+/-0.2) V (at 1 M versus normal hydrogen electrode) for the reduction of nitric oxide (N
72 Vs) from 1.4 to 1.7 V(RHE) (RHE = reversible hydrogen electrode) give rise to a band at ~818 cm(-1),
73 ls span a 400-mV range (+349 mV vs. standard hydrogen electrode, H19M; +252 mV, WT; -19 mV, M81A; -69
74 edox potential (-0.762 V versus the standard hydrogen electrode), high abundance and low toxicity.
75 set potential (~1.07 volts versus reversible hydrogen electrode), high photocurrent density, and dura
76 nset potential reaches 0.83 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode in 0.1 M KOH and the H(2) O(2) select
77 ecedented onset of 0.822 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode in 0.1 M KOH to deliver 0.1 mA cm(-2)
80 provides essential catalytic properties for hydrogen electrodes in proton-conducting ceramic electro
84 ound potential of +200 mV versus NHE (normal hydrogen electrode) is found for SoxR isolated from Esch
85 f this variant (-96 +/- 7 mV versus standard hydrogen electrode) is similar to that of wild-type IsdI
86 er 100 mA.cm(-2) at -0.5 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode, leading to a five-order enhancement
87 ow redox potential (-0.76 V vs. the standard hydrogen electrode), low cost, water compatibility, and
88 e T1 reduction potentials >600 mV (vs normal hydrogen electrode), making them important catalysts for
89 2.1 mA/cm(2) at 0.9 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode, nearly double the previous record, a
90 from -89 to -551 mV (relative to the normal hydrogen electrode NHE) which supports the feasibility o
91 % increase in current at 1.5 V vs the normal hydrogen electrode (NHE) and a change in the Tafel slope
92 reduction starts from -0.1 V versus a normal hydrogen electrode (NHE) when a mixture of water and ion
93 ow between +15 and +489 mV versus the normal hydrogen electrode (NHE), were used to immobilize and "w
97 *-)) but the E(o)' values (versus the normal hydrogen electrode) of -70 mV (FAD/FAD(*-)) and = -122 m
98 als (SAPs; -0.25, 0, and 0.25 V vs. standard hydrogen electrode) on the electrochemical performance,
99 +/- 46 mA cm(-2) at 0.4 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode, outperforming many noble metal elect
100 a low reduction potential, 0.38 V (vs Normal Hydrogen Electrode, pH 7.8), for the MnxG type 1 Cu(2+),
102 ls higher than 0.55 V (versus the reversible hydrogen electrode), regardless of the Pt surface struct
104 cm(-2) and 87.7% at 1.23 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode, respectively, corresponding to 83% a
107 pplied potential of 1.40 V versus the normal hydrogen electrode resulted in the formation of dioxygen
108 of -16.7 mA cm(-2) at 0 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) and an output photovoltage of 0
109 n onset potential of 0.7 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) and saturation current density
110 ne(-)/nH(+) potential versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) and the free energy of hydrogen
111 of 0.92 V, 0.83 V, and 0.86 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) are attained in alkaline, neutr
112 between -0.9 V and -1.3 V vs. the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) at a maximum formate partial cu
113 of oxygen at ~1.50 V versus (vs) reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) electrochemically, and reach an
114 an overpotential of 152 mV versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) for the electrocatalytic curren
115 (2+)|GCE electrode at -1.33 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) in 0.5 M KHCO3, with 8 ppm adde
116 ty of 4.48 mA.cm(-2) at 1.23 V vs reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) is achieved by the NiOOH/BP/BiV
117 e feature at ~ -0.05 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) that reflects the state of the
118 y of 15.1 mA cm(-2) at 1.23 V vs. reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) with an onset potential of 0.55
119 athodic potential (-0.25 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE)), CO(2) is reduced to HCOO(-) u
120 (catalytic onset > -0.2 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE)), increase the Faraday efficien
121 ic efficiency (99% at -580 mV vs. Reversible Hydrogen Electrode (RHE)), small onset overpotential (<9
122 toms with onset at >=1.6 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), aligning with experimentally o
123 odes with an onset of -0.4 V vs a reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), and 1.4+/-0.2 mA cm(-2) at 1.2
124 t low overpotentials of -0.5 V vs reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), as a result of the intercalant
125 l steps at -0.1 and -1.0 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), Au was found to degrade via na
126 to 35 mA cm(-2) at 0 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), onset photovoltages as high as
128 12500 h(-1) at -0.95 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), with a FE for formate of 96 %
132 ent under a potential of -0.59 V [reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE)] at pH 7 and compare with exper
133 h onset potential at -0.53 V (vs. reversible hydrogen electrode, RHE) and C2-C3 faradaic efficiency (
136 n rate to be invariant with pH on a Standard Hydrogen Electrode scale and conclude that it is limited
137 ined at the same potential on the reversible hydrogen electrode scale is likely caused by larger over
138 pH-dependent OER activity on the reversible hydrogen electrode scale, indicating non-concerted proto
140 duction potential of -370 mV vs the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) and is stable through redox cyc
141 /II) redox couple at -360 mV vs the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) and is susceptible to reduction
142 a range from +970 mV to -954 mV vs. standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) by mutating only five residues
143 , epsilon(+/-), or equivalently the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) energy, functions as an absolut
144 dox potential of 0.19 eV versus the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) for FeMoco(oxidized) + e(-) -->
145 l values that are referenced to the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), which is arbitrarily assigned
146 amic values that is anchored to the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), which is assigned an arbitrary
149 surface charge (+0.24 V versus the standard hydrogen electrode [SHE]), Delta1501 mutant cells detach
150 -0.09, 0.21, 0.51, and 0.81 V vs a standard hydrogen electrode, SHE) in single-chamber microbial ele
151 duction potential (-336 mV versus a standard hydrogen electrode), similar to other photosynthetic Fds
152 ochrome c(4) are 240 and 340 mV (vs standard hydrogen electrode), similar to the electrochemical prop
153 rds ethylene at -0.7 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode, superior to the previously reported
154 ncy at potentials relative to the reversible hydrogen electrode that are comparable to those in neutr
155 potentials of < or =-0.25 V versus standard hydrogen electrode, the conductance of the SLM increases
157 osited devices) at 0.5 V versus a reversible hydrogen electrode under air mass 1.5 G illumination, an
158 at a potential of 1.23 V versus a reversible hydrogen electrode under AM1.5G simulated sunlight.
160 t potential of -0.05 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (V(RHE)) and Faradaic efficiencies fo
161 k onset potential [0.393 V vs the reversible hydrogen electrode (V(RHE))] for SiNW-based photocathodi
163 A redox potential of -26 mV versus standard hydrogen electrode was measured by cyclic voltammetry on
165 nts up to 17.6 mA/cm(2) at 0 V vs reversible hydrogen electrode were achieved under simulated 1 sun i
166 20 mV, +0.052 mV, and +0.060 V versus normal hydrogen electrode, whereas the rates of dismutation (kc
167 m(2) and 490 mA/mgPt at 0.9 V (vs reversible hydrogen electrode), which are much higher than those of
168 itive redox potential (-103 mV versus normal hydrogen electrode), which is not significantly affected
169 02 V versus ferrocene (MeCN) (1.65 vs normal hydrogen electrode), which is one the highest known amon
170 h(-1) mg(cat.) (-1) at -0.55 V vs reversible hydrogen electrode, which even surpasses most reported T
171 p to ~7.9 uA cm(-2) at 0 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode, which is superior to the reported 2D
172 dified from 0.0 to 1.0 V versus a reversible hydrogen electrode, while Fe-based moieties experience s
173 .3 mA cm(-2) at 1.23 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode with an applied bias photon-to-curren
175 ~288 mA cm(-2) at -0.61 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode within a flow cell reactor under ambi
176 eter for ORR (at 0.9 volts versus reversible hydrogen electrode), yielding a mass activity of 13.6 am