## 3 Results and Discussion
### The PE Characteristics during Temperature Scan Against Scratching Environments  
We indicate more explicitly the change in the PE characteristics for the temperature scan in different environments. The PE measurement in this case was conducted as described below [5]. The PE glow curves, representing the temperature dependence of PE intensity, which led to the PE quantum yield, \(Y\), under 210-nm-wavelength light irradiation, were measured. The temperature scan was carried out over two cycles of temperature increase and subsequent decrease (Up1 and Down1 scans, and Up2 and Down2 scans) in the range 25-339 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and we obtained four PE glow curves. After that, the Arrhenius activation energies, \(\Delta E_{\mathrm{a}}\), were obtained using the PE quantum yields at seven temperatures chosen in the glow curve for each scan. The values of the total count of electrons emitted during the Up1 and Up2 scans, \(N_{\mathrm{Up1}}\) and \(N_{\mathrm{Up2}}\), respectively, were also obtained. Figure 7 shows the plots of \(N_{\mathrm{Up1}}\) and \(N_{\mathrm{Up2}}\) against the environments. It is seen that the values of \(N_{\mathrm{Up1}}\) and \(N_{\mathrm{Up2}}\) tended to increase as the environment shifted to the right, with a slightly higher level in the Up2 scan. The projected points at benzene in the Up1 scan and at air and methanol in the Up2 scan are in good agreement with the decreasing values of \(\Delta E_{\mathrm{aUp1}}\) and \(\Delta E_{\mathrm{aUp2}}\) in Figure 8, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Scratching Environment**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Activation Energies for the Fe**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Activation Energies for the Energy for the Maximum**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**29, Fe 39, O 1s, and C 1s**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (unit: counts)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (unit: counts)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles/Fe 29**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles/Fe 39**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1.5 GHz Spectrum in the Units**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (unit: counts)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles/Fe 29**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles/Fe 39**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1.5 GHz Spectrum in the Units**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (unit: counts)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (intensity)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intersiles (intensity)**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & \(\Delta E_{\mathrm{a}}\)\(\Delta E_{\mathrm{a}  
Figure 8a,b shows the plots of the values of \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{uUp1}}\) and \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp2}}\) against the environments, respectively. The \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp1}}\) values widely ranged from 0.212 to 0.035 eV, while the values of \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp2}}\) were in a much narrower range of 0.038 to 0.020 eV. We observed that the values of \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp1}}\) showed a decreasing trend for the environments of water, methanol, ethanol, and acetone, i.e., except for benzene and cyclohexane. In addition, the values of \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp2}}\) tended to gradually decrease as the environment shifted to the right. The sharp drop in \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp1}}\) from air to benzene may be associated with the two routes presumed for the electron transfer process as stated above, although the mechanism remained unclear. The gradual decrease in \(\Delta\)E\({}_{\text{aUp1}}\) between the environments of water, methanol, ethanol, and acetone can be explained by the orientations of electric dipoles formed by the acid-base interaction modes between the molecules of (CH\({}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\)CO, C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{5}\)OH, CH\({}_{3}\)OH, and H\({}_{2}\)O, and the surface hydroxyl groups [5]. We explain the interaction modes of H\({}_{2}\)O, which has the highest acceptor number, and (CH\({}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\)CO, which has the highest proton affinity, with Fe-OH.