Definition of Absolute Electrode Potential

Click For Summary
Absolute electrode potential is defined differently in various sources, with John Bockris including the chemical potential of electrons in the metal alongside the Galvani potential difference. This inclusion accounts for the energy associated with electron behavior in the metal. Wikipedia's definition incorporates the work function, which encompasses both the surface potential difference and the chemical potential of electrons, leading to a nuanced distinction. Despite these differences, the two definitions are fundamentally similar, as the work function can be viewed as the chemical potential per electron. Overall, the variations stem from different approaches to defining the zero potential and the complexities of the Fermi surface.
Dario56
Messages
289
Reaction score
48
Hey guys,

I have two questions:

1) I thought absolute electrode potential is galvani potential difference at the interface. However, it is given by this equation in John Bockris - Modern Electrochemistry: $$ E(abs) = ^M\Delta^S\phi - \mu_e^M/F $$
First term is galvani potential difference on the metal/solution interface and the other is chemical potential of electrons in the metal divided by Farady's constant

Why is chemical potential of electrons in metal included in the definition?

2) On wikipedia, absolute electrode potential is defined as: $$ E(abs) = ^M\Delta^S\phi + \Theta $$

Where second term is work function of the metal. This definiton is a little bit different than in Bockris since work function includes surface potential difference on the interface in addition to chemical potential of electrons in the metal.

Why are these two definitions different?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
They are not essentially different. The work function is, roughly, the chemical potential per electron.
There are complicating factors because of choice of zero for the potential and the work function and a few more technical points involving geometry and the Fermi surface, but often these are not relevant. As usual, detailed semantic distinctions must be supplanted by appropriate maths.
 
hutchphd said:
They are not essentially different. The work function is, roughly, the chemical potential per electron.
There are complicating factors because of choice of zero for the potential and the work function and a few more technical points involving geometry and the Fermi surface, but often these are not relevant. As usual, detailed semantic distinctions must be supplanted by appropriate maths.
Yes as I mentioned in the post, work function is defined as: $$ \Theta = -\mu_e^M + zF\Xi^M $$

Other term is surface potential of the metal, so this term is the difference between the two definitions.

Maybe as you said, surface potential term is usually small compared to chemical potential term.
 
What I know and please correct me: a macroscopic probe of raw sugar you can buy from the store can be modeled to be an almost perfect cube of a size of 0.7 up to 1 mm. Let's assume it was really pure, nothing else but a conglomerate of H12C22O11 molecules stacked one over another in layers with van de Waals (?) "forces" keeping them together in a macroscopic state at a temperature of let's say 20 degrees Celsius. Then I use 100 such tiny pieces to throw them in 20 deg water. I stir the...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K