Abstract

The heterogeneous electron transfer at <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX> monolayers on GC, HOPG, and Au electrode surfaces are investigated using cyclic voltammetric and electrochemical impedance spectroscopic (EIS) methods. The electron transfer of negatively charged <TEX>$Fe(CN)_6^{3-}$</TEX> species is retarded at <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX>-modified electrode surfaces, while that of positively charged <TEX>$Ru(NH_3)_6^{3+}$</TEX>species is accelerated at the modified surfaces. This is due to the electrostatic interactions between <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX> layers on surfaces and charged redox species. The electron transfer kinetics of a neutral redox species, 1,1‘-ferrocenedimethanol (FDM), is not affected by the modification of electrode surfaces with <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX>, indicating the <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX> monolayers do not impart barriers to electron transfer of neutral redox species. This is different from the case of thiolate SAMs which always add barriers to electron transfer. The effect of <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX> layers on the electron transfer of charged redox species is dependent on the kind of electrodes, where HOPG surfaces exhibit marked effects. Possible mechanisms responsible for different electron transfer behaviors at <TEX>$SiMo_{12}O_{40}^{4-}$</TEX> layers are proposed.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.