โ Scribed by Miguel A. Blesa; Nikola Kallay
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
The Nernstian approach to the description of the metal/electrolyte interface is compared with descriptions based on the surface complexation models. Differences are from the assumptions made about the dependence of chemical potential of the potential determining ions (p.d.i.) at the solid surface on the composition.
The Nernstian approach is based on the constancy of the chemical potential of p.d.i, at/in the solid surface while the surface complexation model takes into account the variable composition of the surface through the surface complexation of a limited number of surface sites. The Nernst approach leads to a linear relationship between the surface potential and the logarithm of p.d.i. activity with slope RT(In 10)/6 independent of ionic strength. On the other hand, values of the surface potentials calculated using the surface complexa-
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
where the complexed solutes represented in Eq. [1] are cat-Simultaneous solution of the Gibbs-Lewis thermodynamic ions, M m , anions, A a , nonionics, U 0 , protons, H / , and hyequations for equilibrium proton and cation complexation at the droxide ions, OH 0 . ## solution-metal oxide interface re