4.6 Article

Circuit Analysis of Ionizing Surface Potential Measurements of Electrolyte Solutions

期刊

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/abd649

关键词

interfacial potential; surface tension; gas liquid interface; vapor liquid; sodium chloride; electrolyte; radioactive electrode

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy under Basic Energy Science CPIMS [DE-SC0016381]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0016381] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface potential measurement values at gas-liquid interfaces can be ambiguous due to lack of standardization in calibration and normalization methods. The proposed circuit model based on americium-241 demonstrates reliability in quantifying surface potential. Validation with surface tension measurements further confirms the accuracy of the ionizing method.
Surface potential measurement values of the gas-liquid interface can be ambiguous despite the numerous electrochemical approaches used for quantification of the reported values. Calibration and normalization methods are not standardized, which often undermines the robustness of the reported values. Surface potential instrumentation and data interpretation also varies significantly across literature. Here, we propose a circuit model for an ionizing surface potential method based on the alpha decay of a radioactive americium-241 electrode. We evaluate the robustness of the circuit model for quantifying the surface potential at the air-aqueous interface. We then show successful validation of our circuit model through determination of the surface tension of the air-electrolyte interface with comparison to respective surface tension literature values. This validation reveals the reliability of surface potential measurements using the americium-241 ionizing method. We also report the surface potential difference of the air/water interface to be -0.49 V 0.01 V consistent with hydrogens of water pointing toward the air phase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据