The effect of laboratory and non-laboratory facilities on a researcher's research

The prestressing plus the anchoring of the sides of the walls from their highest level with the foundation ground ensures in all sections of the bearing during the earthquake a small deformation and eliminates the correct forces (N), the moments (M) and the shear (Q) It deflects the inertia tensions in the ground, increases the active cross-section of the wall, provides a strong foundation ground, corrects the oblique tensile arrows, restores the construction to its original position even after an inelastic leak. It ensures less displacement of the ground, so less acceleration, reduces the cost of construction .... and no one cares!

Can anyone suggest a SCIE/ Scopus indexed (IF 0.5 - 2.5 preferred) journal in Food Nutrition/ Functional Foods/ Clinical Nutrition categories that accept Reviews?

Especial requirement is the higher number of volumes per annum and lower review time.

How to maintain data quality in qualitative research? How to ensure quality in qualitative data collection as well as data analysis?

Hello everyone,

My PhD research includes degradation and stability study of fuel cell Pt/C catalysts for ORR. This is a new area of research, both for me (I'm coming from TEM background) and my lab, which is why I'm learning most experimental procedures and parameters from papers rather than more experienced colleagues.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that there's no agreement in electrochemical community regarding said procedures/parameters and here I would like to specify what causes my confusion:

- regarding CV and LSV procedures, from what I've already read and from my experimental data, it seems that scan speed influences ECSA data (extracted from H2 adsorption region on cyclic voltammograms) and activity data (extracted from linear scan voltammograms). Yet, I see different papers publishing data obtained with different parameters, which for me makes the results virtually impossible to compare. Additionally, some procedures include the so called electrochemical cleaning and stabilisation of the working electrode by performing 40-100 CV scans with higher speeds (100-200 mV/s), yet some papers seem to omit it. With LSV some procedures call for background subtraction of LSV data obtained from the measurement performed in N2 saturated electrolyte but again, not all papers include that step (yet both approached seem to be acceptable for publication).

Regarding accelerated degradation testing, the procedures seem to be a lot more all over the place:

-different scan speeds

100-500 mV/s, and from my experimental data I already see that scan speed influences degradation rate,

-different approaches to experiment

continuous scan vs 'sample and hold' (square wave) scan,

-different potential ranges

lower limit being 0,4 - 0,6 V, higher 0,9 - 1,2 V for operating condition testing, start-stop testing seems to be consistant 1 - 1,5 V,

-different "atmosphere" of electrolyte

O2 saturated, deoxygenated and "as prepared" electrolyte, all of those seem to be leading to publishable results.

So to sum up my stream of consciousness:

I'm not looking for specific experimental parameters (although getting some suggestion on those would be more than great) but rather some insight on the general consensus in electrochemical community regarding said parameters and why discrepancies in them seem to be widely accepted. Also, if someone feels like they have more spare time than they can utilise, I would be more than willing to participate in an internship in a unit focused on degradation/stability study of catalysts.

Thank you and have a great day,

Szymon

Generally, this material is used to improve the performance of the optical absorption of these arrangements among other uses.