Electrochemistry Reference Electrodes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on converting electric potential readings from an Ag/AgCl reference system to a RHE system at pH 7. The conversion involves using the equation for RHE, which at pH 7 is 0.4137 V. There is confusion regarding the correct values to use, specifically the difference between 0.197 V and 0.222 V for the Ag/AgCl reference. The participant acknowledges a mistake in their calculations and clarifies that 0.222 V should be used for consistency. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate reference values in electrochemistry calculations.
war485
Messages
90
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Change your electric potential readings from a Ag/AgCl system to a RHE (reversible hydrogen electrode) system at pH 7.

For example, 0.3 V vs Ag/AgCl and -0.1 V vs Ag/AgCl

Homework Equations



Ag/AgCl 0.222 Volts
RHE 0 - 0.0591*pH Volts

The Attempt at a Solution



RHE at pH 7 = 0.4137 V

0.3 V vs Ag/AgCl + (0.197 - 0.4137) = 0.08333 V ?
-0.1 V vs Ag/AgCl + (0.197 - 0.4137) = -0.3167 V ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
-0.0591*7 is not 0.4137

Not that I am sure about the correct signs, but what you did looks inconsistent.
 
ah yes I forgot to put that negative sign on my post. So RHE at pH 7 = 0.4137 V should really be read as RHE at pH 7 = -0.4137 V
everything below that assumed that sign was there in the first place.

Are my signs or thinking inconsistent? I was trying to think of everything in terms of SHE (standard hydrogen electrode), which is marked as 0 V.
 
What is 0.197?

Edit: I mean, I know what it is, I wonder why you used 0.197 on calculations, but you listed 0.222 earlier.
 
I was given 0.222 V.
0.197 V would be for a saturated chloride solution, ooh, oups, that belongs to a followup problem (not relevant to this thread), I see what you mean now. It should say 0.222 V not 0.197 V
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top