Mariana C O Monteiro1, Leon Jacobse2, Thomas Touzalin1, Marc T M Koper1. 1. Leiden Institute of Chemistry , Leiden University , P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RA , Leiden , The Netherlands. 2. DESY NanoLab , Deutsches Elektronensynchrotron DESY , Notkestrasse 85 , D-22607 Hamburg , Germany.
Abstract
Probing pH gradients during electrochemical reactions is important to better understand reaction mechanisms and to separate the influence of pH and pH gradients from intrinsic electrolyte effects. Here, we develop a pH sensor to measure pH changes in the diffusion layer during hydrogen evolution. The probe was synthesized by functionalizing a gold ultramicroelectrode with a self-assembled monolayer of 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP) and further converting it to form a hydroxylaminothiophenol (4-HATP)/4-nitrosothiophenol (4-NSTP) redox couple. The pH sensing is realized by recording the tip cyclic voltammetry and monitoring the Nernstian shift of the midpeak potential. We employ a capacitive approach technique in our home-built Scanning Electrochemical Microscope (SECM) setup in which an AC potential is applied to the sample and the capacitive current generated at the tip is recorded as a function of distance. This method allows for an approach of the tip to the electrode that is electrolyte-free and consequently also mediator-free. Hydrogen evolution on gold in a neutral electrolyte was studied as a model system. The pH was measured with the probe at a constant distance from the electrode (ca. 75 μm), while the electrode potential was varied in time. In the nonbuffered electrolyte used (0.1 M Li2SO4), even at relatively low current densities, a pH difference of three units is measured between the location of the probe and the bulk electrolyte. The time scale of the diffusion layer transient is captured, due to the high time resolution that can be achieved with this probe. The sensor has high sensitivity, measuring differences of more than 8 pH units with a resolution better than 0.1 pH unit.
Probing pH gradients during electrochemical reactions is important to better understand reaction mechanisms and to separate the influence of pH and pH gradients from intrinsic electrolyte effects. Here, we develop a pH sensor to measure pH changes in the diffusion layer during hydrogen evolution. The probe was synthesized by functionalizing a gold ultramicroelectrode with a self-assembled monolayer of 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP) and further converting it to form a hydroxylaminothiophenol (4-HATP)/4-nitrosothiophenol (4-NSTP) redox couple. The pH sensing is realized by recording the tip cyclic voltammetry and monitoring the Nernstian shift of the midpeak potential. We employ a capacitive approach technique in our home-built Scanning Electrochemical Microscope (SECM) setup in which an AC potential is applied to the sample and the capacitive current generated at the tip is recorded as a function of distance. This method allows for an approach of the tip to the electrode that is electrolyte-free and consequently also mediator-free. Hydrogen evolution on gold in a neutral electrolyte was studied as a model system. The pH was measured with the probe at a constant distance from the electrode (ca. 75 μm), while the electrode potential was varied in time. In the nonbuffered electrolyte used (0.1 M Li2SO4), even at relatively low current densities, a pH difference of three units is measured between the location of the probe and the bulk electrolyte. The time scale of the diffusion layer transient is captured, due to the high time resolution that can be achieved with this probe. The sensor has high sensitivity, measuring differences of more than 8 pH units with a resolution better than 0.1 pH unit.
The pH affects
chemical reactions
in a wide variety of systems and pH effects have been studied in the
fields of biology,[1,2] medicine,[3,4] corrosion,[5,6] and electrocatalysis,[7] among others.
For example, during electrochemical reactions that consume or produce
either protons or hydroxyl ions, a pH gradient is built up in the
diffusion layer. The proton concentration at the electrode–electrolyte
interface is known to influence the kinetics and selectivity of various
electrochemical reactions such as hydrogen evolution,[8] CO2 reduction,[9,10] nitrate reduction,[11] and oxygen evolution.[12] Measuring the pH near the surface allows to better model these electrocatalytic
processes and to understand their mechanism under different reaction
conditions and in different electrolytes. In order to probe the diffusion
layer, the spatial resolution of the conventional pH glass electrode
and other bulk techniques using optical[13] or colorimetric[14] sensors is not high
enough. Instead, local measurements of pH at the micro- and nanoscale
can be achieved with Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy (SECM) where
miniaturized electrodes are used to probe the local properties of
an interface.[15] High spatial and temporal
resolution of these measurements can be achieved, which mainly depend
on the kind of probe used and the electrochemical signal monitored.
Spectroscopic pH measurements at the microscale have also been reported.[16−18] However, such measurements do not probe the local proton concentration
directly, can only be used for specific electrodes and electrocatalytic
reactions, and do not provide spatial resolution. Fluorescence microscopy[19−21] has also been used to map interfacial pH. Although pH maps can be
obtained relatively quickly, the need of adding a fluorophore to the
electrolyte is a drawback as it may affect the electrochemical process
being studied. Based on the discussion presented here, SECM should
be a more suitable technique to measure the interfacial pH during
electrocatalytic reactions.Different probes have been proposed
for conducting local pH measurements
with SECM. Various transition metal oxides show a super Nernstian
open circuit potential (OCP) shift with pH and have been employed
as potentiometric pH sensors. Iridium oxide (IrO) is the most commonly used[22] and
several synthesis methods have been reported such as nanoparticles
electrodeposition,[23] anodic growth,[24] and sol–gel synthesis.[25] The sensing response relies on the porosity of the oxide
layer; dense oxide films have a slow response to pH changes, while
porous layers show a fast response, but with a significant OCP drift.[26] Besides drift, another drawback of these probes
comes from the adsorption of species on the sensor surface (contaminants,
ions, reaction products) that can lead to a convoluted OCP response.[27] These limitations can strongly influence how
precisely these IrO pH sensors capture
the local pH gradient during electrochemical reactions. In addition,
oxide dissolution can compromise the use of these probes in highly
acidic or alkaline media.[28] To overcome
these limitations, polymer-based potentiometric sensors[29] have been proposed, such as polyaniline-coated
Au electrodes,[30] and carbon electrodes
modified with poly(1-naphthylamine)[31] or
polydopamine.[32] However, many of these
polymer films strongly interact with alkali metal cations which may
lead to a shift in the OCP.[33] In addition,
the time response is reported to strongly depend on the quality of
the electropolymerization and film thickness.Other techniques
have also been used to probe the pH near the surface.
Ryu et al. used the pH-sensitive reaction of H2 with cis-2-butene-1,4-diol to probe the interfacial pH during
concurrent hydrogen oxidation.[34] Even though
significant effects were observed as a function of buffer capacity
and current density, the impact of the addition of cis-2-butene-1,4-diol to the electrolyte on the electrocatalysis cannot
be determined and might limit the use of this technique to probe other
reactions. Measurements of local pH have also been performed using
a Rotating Ring-Disk Electrode (RRDE).[35,36] However, this
method is limited in terms of the electrode materials, reactions to
be analyzed, and lack spatial resolution. Voltammetric pH sensors
have also been proposed and are interesting due to their fast response
and operation in large pH ranges.[37−40] Boltz and co-workers, for instance,
used the voltammetry of platinum nanoelectrodes to monitor the pH
above a gas diffusion electrode during oxygen reduction.[41] However, platinum can only be used to probe
reactions that do not generate species that strongly interact with
the surface, affecting the voltammetry. Michalak et al. developed
nano pH sensors based on the cyclic voltammetry of syringaldazine
polymer films attached to carbon substrates.[42] Even though the sensor works in a large pH range, the stability
of polymer films, in general, is still concerning, as film detachment
can hinder the pH response.In this work, we present a pH sensor
based on the irreversible
self-assembly of 4-nitrothiophenol on a gold ultramicroelectrode (Au-UME).
After conversion, the hydroxylaminothiophenol/4-nitrosothiophenol
redox couple is formed and its midpeak potential shows a Nernstian
shift of 57 mV/pH. Using hydrogen evolution as a model system, we
can perform pH measurements in the diffusion layer with high reproducibility.
Because of the sensitivity of the functionalized tip and to avoid
possible side effects from redox-active mediators, we also introduce
an ex situ capacitive approach method to control the absolute tip-to-sample
distance.[43] In contrast to potentiometric
pH sensors, our probe provides high time resolution and stable response.
In addition, the pH sensitivity is not affected by electrolyte species
or reaction products, which allows for application in a wide variety
of systems (electrocatalytic or not).
Experimental Section
pH Sensor
Fabrication and Characterization
Gold ultramicroelectrodes
(Au-UMEs) were fabricated by sealing a gold wire (50 μm diameter,
H. Drijfhout en Zoon’s Edelmetaalbedrijven B.V.) in a glass
capillary (0.4 mm i.d., Drummond Scientific Co.) and exposing a cross
section by grinding the electrode with a silicon carbide paper (grit
size 600, MaTeck). The surface was prepared by polishing with a 1,
0.25, and 0.05 μm diamond suspension (MetaDi, Buehler) for 2
min. In between each polishing step the electrode was sonicated (Bandelin
Sonorex RK 52H) in ultrapure water (>18.2 MΩ cm, Millipore
Milli-Q)
for 5 min and, after the last step, 5 min in ethanol followed by 15
min in water. After surface preparation, the electrode was characterized
by cyclic voltammetry in 0.1 M H2SO4, recorded
in a one compartment cell (20 mL) using a gold wire (0.5 mm diameter,
MaTeck, 99.9%) as counter electrode and a Ag/AgCl (LowProfile, Pine
Research Instrumentation) reference electrode. The electrochemical
measurements reported in this work were performed using a Bio-Logic
2-channel potentiostat/galvanostat/EIS (SP-300). The Au-UMEs were
modified with 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP, Merck, 80%) by immersion in
a 1 mM 4-NTP/ethanol solution. After 20 min, the electrode was thoroughly
rinsed with ethanol and ultrapure water in order to remove weakly
adsorbed species. The functionalized electrode was transferred back
to a 0.1 M H2SO4 solution in order to convert
the organic molecule by polarization from 0.1 to −0.25 V versus
Ag/AgCl (100 mV s–1). Calibration of the pH sensor
was performed by cyclic voltammetry in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (Alfa Aesar, anhydrous, 99.99% metal basis) solutions saturated
with argon or hydrogen at various pH. The pH was adjusted by the addition
of appropriate amounts of 1 M H2SO4 (Merck,
Suprapur, 96%) or 1 M LiOH (Merck, monohydrate, 99.995% trace metals
basis). The pH of the calibration solutions was determined with a
glass-electrode pH meter (Lab 855, SI Analytics) calibrated with standard
buffer solutions (Radiometer Analytical).
SECM Measurements
SECM experiments were performed in
a home-built system equipped with x-y-z stepper motors (C-863 Mercury, PI) and piezo
positioners (E-665, PI). The sample was a gold disc (0.5 mm thick,
MaTeck, 99.995%) cleaned and polished with diamond suspension using
the protocol described elsewhere.[44] A copper
plate (0.5 mm thick, MaTeck) is used to make the electrical contact
to the sample. A schematic representation of the SECM setup and a
more detailed description can be found in Figure S1 in the Supporting Information.The glass SECM cell
and gas bubblers were cleaned by immersion in potassium permanganate
solution for 24 h (1 g L–1 KMnO4 dissolved in 0.5 M H2SO4), followed by immersion in dilute piranha solution in order to remove
residues of manganese oxide and permanganate anions. The glassware
was further cleaned by boiling at least five times in ultrapure water.The mediator-free approach of the modified Au-UME to the gold working
electrode was performed in air by applying a 10 kHz AC voltage with
an amplitude of 4 Vpp (1.41 VRMS) to the sample using a function generator (33210A,
Keysight). The gold ultramicroelectrode was connected to a low noise
current preamplifier (SR570, Stanford Research) operated at high-bandwidth
with a gain of 2 × 108 V A–1. The
capacitive tip current was obtained using a virtual lock-in amplifier
(LabView).To measure the pH during hydrogen evolution, the
SECM electrochemical
cell was filled with 5 mL of 0.1 M Li2SO4 brought
to pH 3.2 by the addition of an adequate amount of 1 M H2SO4. The experiment was performed in a six-electrode configuration,
where the tip and the sample were controlled by two distinct potentiostat
channels. Two gold wires and two Ag/AgCl electrodes were used as counter
and reference electrodes, respectively. Argon was purged through and
above the solution throughout the whole experiment in order to avoid
oxygen diffusion into the electrolyte. Measurements were performed
with the pH sensor at a constant distance from the surface and the
tip voltammetry was constantly recorded at a scan rate of 200 mV s–1 (5 s per cycle) while the sample potential was varied.
The midpeak potential for each cycle was obtained by fitting the tip
voltammetry (see SI) and converted to pH
using the calibration curve.
Results and Discussion
Functionalized
Gold pH Sensor
It has been previously
shown how important the surface preparation and cleanliness of UMEs
is for their use in electrocatalysis.[45] Au-UMEs were characterized in 0.1 M H2SO4 before
functionalization (see Figure S2 in SI)
in order to ensure the glass is efficiently sealing the gold wire
and that the surface is clean. Functionalization was performed by
immersing the probe in a solution containing 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP).
The molecules form a self-assembled monolayer at the gold surface,
binding through the thiol anchor group. The free nitro group is then
partially reduced electrochemically into a hydroxyl amino group by
cycling the tip from 0.1 to −0.25 V versus Ag/AgCl in 0.1 M
H2SO4. The voltammogram (CV) of the conversion
and a schematic representation of the species formed are shown in Figure a and b, respectively.
Hydroxylaminothiophenol (4-HATP) is formed through the transfer of
four protons and four electrons and at positive potentials 4-HATP
is reversibly oxidized to 4-nitrosothiophenol (4-NSTP) through the
transfer of two protons and two electrons (see Figure c). Thus, the midpeak potential of the 4-HATP/4-NSTP
redox couple is expected to show a Nernstian shift with pH.[46]
Figure 1
(a) Voltammetry (0.1 M H2SO4, 100
mV s–1) and schematic representation of the conversion
of
(b) 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP) to 4-hydroxiaminothiophenol (4-HATP),
and (c) the two proton–two electron transfer reaction of the
redox couple 4-HATP/4-NSTP.
(a) Voltammetry (0.1 M H2SO4, 100
mV s–1) and schematic representation of the conversion
of
(b) 4-nitrothiophenol (4-NTP) to 4-hydroxiaminothiophenol (4-HATP),
and (c) the two proton–two electron transfer reaction of the
redox couple 4-HATP/4-NSTP.The electrochemical characterization of the reversible redox couple
4-HATP/4-NSTP in Figure a shows that the tip voltammetry is very stable over the 30 cycles
performed. It is important to point out that for successful functionalization
of the Au-UME the potential of the tip must be carefully controlled.
It has been previously shown by Touzalin et al. that at potentials
lower than −0.25 V vs Ag/AgCl (pH = 1) 4-NTP and 4-HATP are
fully irreversibly reduced to 4-aminothiophenol (4-ATP).[47] At potentials higher than 0.6 V vs Ag/AgCl the
monolayer is destabilized leading to a decrease in the 4-HATP/4-NSTP
signal intensity (although the exact mechanism that leads to destabilization
is not yet clear).
Figure 2
(a) Characterization of the electroactive redox couple
4-HATP/4-NATP
in 0.1 M H2SO4 at 200 mV s–1, and (b) calibration of the functionalized Au-UME in 0.1 M Li2SO4 solutions adjusted to different pH and saturated
with argon or hydrogen.
(a) Characterization of the electroactive redox couple
4-HATP/4-NATP
in 0.1 M H2SO4 at 200 mV s–1, and (b) calibration of the functionalized Au-UME in 0.1 M Li2SO4 solutions adjusted to different pH and saturated
with argon or hydrogen.In order to calibrate
the pH sensor, the tip voltammetry was recorded
in argon saturated solutions of various pH values (see Figure S3 in the SI). The potential of the anodic
peak as a function of pH was used to construct the calibration curves
depicted in Figure b. A linear fit of the data provides the following relationship:
pH = (0.341 – Epeak)/0.057, with
an R2 value of 0.99. The midpeak potential
shows a Nernstian behavior with a shift of 57 mV per pH unit. As the
tip will be used to probe pH changes during hydrogen evolution, it
was also calibrated in hydrogen atmosphere. As can be seen in Figure b, the presence of
hydrogen does not affect the pH response. Even though the calibration
curve shown in Figure b does not include pH 7, other calibration curves were made where
pH 7 was included and different from the work of Cobb et al.[48] on quinone-based pH electrodes, no significant
deviation of the Nernstian response was found. The latter is probably
related to the different interaction the quinone has with the substrate
in comparison to the 4-nitrothiophenol self-assembled monolayer. In
addition, 4-nitrothiophenol is only partially converted to 4-hydroxiaminothiophenol,
and according to Cobb’s work, the lower the coverage of the
surface, the lower the deviations.
Mediator-Free Approach
Commonly used SECM approach
techniques need a mediator or a diffusion limited reaction taking
place at the tip in order to determine the tip-to-sample distance.[49] However, these methods are not ideal, because
they can contaminate the electrocatalytic system and destabilize the
self-assembled monolayer. Furthermore, it has been shown that commonly
made assumptions about the exact tip geometry lead to significant
errors in the calculated tip-to-sample distance.[50] In principle, AC-SECM[51,52] could be employed,
however, it is not known how stable the self-assembled monolayer is
at high frequencies. Therefore, we have applied an electrolyte-free
approach method that allows determining the absolute tip-to-surface
distance without destabilizing the 4-NTP/4-HATP/4-NSTP monolayer.
This ex situ method employs the capacitance between tip and sample
and was recently introduced by De Voogd et al. as a preapproach for
STM setups.[43]To enable the determination
of the tip–sample capacitance in air, an AC potential (10 kHz,
1.41 VRMS) is applied to the sample and the resulting tip
current is followed with a preamplifier. The out-of-phase (Y) component of the tip current is determined using a lock-in
amplifier. Figure a shows a schematic representation of the approach configuration.
The capacitance can be calculated viawhere G is the preamplifier
gain and f and V are the frequency
and amplitude of the reference (sample) signal, respectively. The
tip and sample can be described as a parallel plate capacitor, of
which the capacitance iswhere ε0 is the permittivity
of air, A is the area (of the tip), and d is the tip-to-sample distance. The total measured capacitance also
contains contributions that are inherent to the setup, for example,
due to the tip connection far away from the sample and the connections
used.[43] These contributions can be well
approximated with a linear function of distance d. Ctot can thus be fitted with the following
equation:where Z is the position of
the stepper motor varied during the approach, d0 is the absolute surface position, and b and c are scaling parameters for the additional contributions. Figure b shows a measured
approach curve together with its fit, demonstrating clearly that the
measured capacitance at short distances is dominated by Cpar. This enables us to approach the surface to a distance
well below the tip diameter (here, 10–30 μm with a 50
μm diameter tip) in a safe and reproducible way. The fitting
parameter d0 allows to obtain the absolute
tip-to-surface distance. It is important to point out that the shape
of the approach curve is not affected by the probe RG (radius of the
insulating layer divided by the radius of the active layer), which
means that it can be employed in any SECM setup. It should be noted
that, due to humidity, the measured permittivity (ε) differs
from the permittivity of dry air (ε0). In a Kelvin
probe approach, this is known to significantly change the approach
curve.[53] However, as seen from eq , it is clear that for
the capacitive approach only the absolute capacitance changes as a
function of ε, while the shape of the approach curve remains
the same. Finally, we have successfully tested this approach technique
with electrodes of different geometries and dimensions. With the appropriate
electronics, the capacitive approach can also be used for significantly
smaller tips than presented here. However, one should realize that,
as the shape of the approach curve does not depend on the tip diameter,
without detailed tip characterization the accuracy of this method
is in the range of 3–5 μm.
Figure 3
(a) Capacitive approach
configuration and (b) approach curve obtained
(blue circles) with its fit to eq (red line).
(a) Capacitive approach
configuration and (b) approach curve obtained
(blue circles) with its fit to eq (red line).
pH Measurements
The functionalized gold pH sensor was
used to study hydrogen evolution (HER) on gold (0.1 M Li2SO4, pH = 3.2) as a model system. Before the pH measurements
were performed, the CV of HER was recorded at the gold substrate,
which is shown in Figure . The cathodic current observed is due to the reduction of
protons (2H+ + 2e– → H2). The reaction rate is initially governed by kinetics and below
−0.8 V versus Ag/AgCl, the reaction becomes diffusion limited.
As protons are consumed at the interface and the diffusion layer thickness
increases, a pH gradient is built up. This can be observed in the
CV by the decrease of the cathodic current from the first to the subsequent
cycles due to proton depletion. However, quantification of the local
pH is not possible based on the CV alone. At potentials more negative
than −1.2 V versus Ag/AgCl and bulk pH, mainly the reduction
of water would take place (2H2O + 2e– → H2 + 2OH–). The SECM pH measurements
were performed in the potential range highlighted in the CV, in which
only proton reduction is taking place.
Figure 4
Cyclic voltammogram of
hydrogen evolution taking place at the gold
sample in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2) recorded at
100 mV s–1.
Cyclic voltammogram of
hydrogen evolution taking place at the gold
sample in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2) recorded at
100 mV s–1.SECM pH measurements were carried out with the functionalized Au-UME
placed at fixed distance, 75 ± 2 μm from the surface. Hydrogen
evolution was turned “on” and “off” at
the gold sample while the tip voltammetry was recorded at a scan rate
of 200 mV s–1. An example of the shift observed
in the tip voltammetry can be found in Figure S4 in the SI. The tip CVs were fitted and the potential of
the anodic peak determined as a function of time (see Figure S5). The calibration curve shown in Figure was used to convert
the tip peak potentials to pH. Details on the data fitting can be
found in the Supporting Information. Results
depicted in Figure show the pH changes taking place when HER is turned “on”
and “off” at the sample at −0.75 V versus Ag/AgCl.
Each data point corresponds to the midpeak potential extracted from
each Au-UME CV. At −0.75 V versus Ag/AgCl, protons are being
consumed at the gold working electrode and it can be seen that the
pH has an initial fast increase of more than two units and takes 50
s to reach a stable value. By observing the sample chronoamperometry
curve (Figure b),
it can be seen that this is also the time needed for the current to
reach diffusion limitation due to an initially fast increase in local
pH and diffusion layer thickness. At −0.75 V, the maximum pH
value of 6.3 was reached. This strong pH increase can be explained
by the fact that the electrolyte is not buffered. After 150 s, HER
is turned “off” and the near-surface pH returns to the
bulk pH value. Similar measurements were previously performed with
an IrO sensor.[54] Comparing our results with the data presented in Figure 8 of ref (54), it can be seen that our
probe captures the time scale of the pH changes during HER more precisely,
allowing for a larger number of data points to be obtained in time,
only dependent on the scan rate at which the tip voltammetry is recorded.
In addition, our pH sensor is more stable and the response does not
drift in time, which is a common drawback of potentiometric sensors
such as IrO.
Figure 5
(a) pH measurement during
hydrogen evolution in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2)
with the sample at −0.75 V vs Ag/AgCl;
(b) chronoamperometry recorded at the sample.
(a) pH measurement during
hydrogen evolution in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2)
with the sample at −0.75 V vs Ag/AgCl;
(b) chronoamperometry recorded at the sample.Measurements were also performed at less negative sample potentials
that, due to the slower consumption of protons, should lead to lower
pH values than obtained at −0.75 V versus Ag/AgCl. As depicted
in Figure when −0.65
V versus Ag/AgCl is applied to the sample, the pH reaches 4.75, and
when HER is carried out at −0.55 V versus Ag/AgCl, only a small
increase of less than one pH unit is observed. The corresponding sample
chronoamperometry can be seen in Figure S6 in the SI. In order to ensure reproducibility of the pH response,
a second measurement was performed applying the same negative potentials
(black curve in Figure ). It can be seen that the same pH values were reached for the same
potentials. This also shows how thermal drift does not compromise
the measurements.
Figure 6
pH measurements in the diffusion layer during hydrogen
evolution
in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2) at different sample
potentials. The measurement was performed in duplicate.
pH measurements in the diffusion layer during hydrogen
evolution
in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3.2) at different sample
potentials. The measurement was performed in duplicate.Another set of HER experiments was performed where the sample
potential
was changed in smaller steps, to demonstrate the sensitivity of the
pH probe. The results can be seen in Figure , where the sample potential was varied from
−0.6 to −0.9 V vs Ag/AgCl in steps of 50 mV. The electrolyte
bulk pH was 3 and a gradual increase in pH can be observed as a function
of sample potential, irrespective of the fact that the potentials
are applied in a random order. The sample chronoamperometry recorded
during the experiment can be found in Figure S7 in the SI. The inset in Figure shows the remarkable sensitivity of our pH probe,
as differences of 0.1 and 0.35 pH units were recorded when the sample
potential was −0.6 and −0.65 V versus Ag/AgCl, respectively.
In addition, measurements at more negative sample potentials show
the large pH range at which the probe can be employed. Note that the
absolute pH values cannot directly be compared between this measurement
and the one shown in Figure as different spots of the polycrystalline gold sample have
distinct reactivities toward HER and the starting bulk pH is not the
same.
Figure 7
pH measurements in the diffusion layer during hydrogen evolution
in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3) performed in a wider
potential range. The inset shows the small pH differences recorded
when the sample potential was −0.65 and −0.60 V vs Ag/AgCl.
pH measurements in the diffusion layer during hydrogen evolution
in 0.1 M Li2SO4 (pH = 3) performed in a wider
potential range. The inset shows the small pH differences recorded
when the sample potential was −0.65 and −0.60 V vs Ag/AgCl.It is important to point out that during the measurements,
the
potential window of the tip voltammetry must be adjusted due to the
pH changes happening locally. Not only the 4-HATP/4-NSTP midpeak potential
shifts with pH but also the potential at which the unwanted tip reactions
take place, that is, 4-ATP formation and destabilization of the self-assembled
monolayer. Therefore, the 4-HATP/4-NSTP peak intensity would decrease
drastically if the potential limits are not adjusted accordingly.
In addition, the time resolution of the measurement can be adjusted
according to the time scale of the reaction being studied (test CVs
were recorded until up to 600 mV s–1 and the tip
voltammetry was still stable).
Conclusions
In
this work, we have successfully developed a pH sensor based
on the self-assembly of 4-nitrothiphenol on gold ultramicroelectrodes.
The probe voltammetry shows a Nernstian behavior with 57 mV/pH shift,
which is not affected by the electrolyte composition. To ensure cleanliness
and avoid destabilization of the probe, we employ a mediator- and
electrolyte-free capacitive approach in order to determine the absolute
tip-to-sample distance. We have measured the pH during hydrogen evolution
with the tip placed at a constant distance, 75 μm from the surface.
Results show that our pH probe provides superior time resolution compared
to previously reported potentiometric IrO pH sensors, allowing to capture the dynamics of proton diffusion
during hydrogen evolution. A gold UME of 50 μm diameter was
used in this work, but the functionalization with 4-NTP can also be
carried out using smaller gold UMEs for further spatially resolved
measurements. This would also allow for measurements with the probe
positioned closer to the surface. Summarizing, we presented a highly
sensitive and selective miniature pH probe that can be applied to
a wide variety of systems, changing for example the gas atmosphere,
electrolyte composition, and substrate. This work provides the means
for more precise determination of the spatially resolved diffusion
layer pH under different reactions. Consequently, it will help to
better understand and model electrocatalytic reactions.
Authors: Nicola C Rudd; Susan Cannan; Eleni Bitziou; Ilenia Ciani; Anna L Whitworth; Patrick R Unwin Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: J M de Voogd; M A van Spronsen; F E Kalff; B Bryant; O Ostojić; A M J den Haan; I M N Groot; T H Oosterkamp; A F Otte; M J Rost Journal: Ultramicroscopy Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Primož Jovanovič; Nejc Hodnik; Francisco Ruiz-Zepeda; Iztok Arčon; Barbara Jozinović; Milena Zorko; Marjan Bele; Martin Šala; Vid Simon Šelih; Samo Hočevar; Miran Gaberšček Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Behzad Fuladpanjeh-Hojaghan; Mohamed M Elsutohy; Vladimir Kabanov; Belinda Heyne; Milana Trifkovic; Edward P L Roberts Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Samuel J Cobb; Vivek M Badiani; Azim M Dharani; Andreas Wagner; Sónia Zacarias; Ana Rita Oliveira; Inês A C Pereira; Erwin Reisner Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 24.274
Authors: Stefan Dieckhöfer; Denis Öhl; João R C Junqueira; Thomas Quast; Thomas Turek; Wolfgang Schuhmann Journal: Chemistry Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 5.236