Definition of Absolute Electrode Potential

AI Thread 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.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top