What Is the Role of Ions in Human Electric Conduction During a Shock?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brendan_foo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conduction Human
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of ions and electrons in electric conduction during a shock, particularly in the context of electrocution. Participants explore the mechanisms of charge flow in the human body, considering both ionic and electronic contributions, and whether the assertion that "no electrons flow" is valid in different scenarios such as AC and DC currents.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Brendan questions the claim that "no electrons flow" during an electric shock, suggesting that the body acts as a conduit for electron flow and that the finite concentration of ions would limit current flow after a transient period.
  • Claude argues that while electrons exist in the body, they are not mobile due to the lack of metallic lattices, and thus ions, which are mobile in the body's aqueous environment, serve as the primary charge carriers during electrocution.
  • Claude also posits that current flow would eventually transition to electrons once ions become immobilized, but this would occur only after a significant duration of current flow.
  • Another participant notes that if the electrocution involves AC current, the ionic current would dominate, implying that the article's claim about electron flow refers to the overwhelming presence of ionic current compared to electronic current.
  • Brendan later clarifies that his initial argument was more focused on the DC scenario, reflecting on a hypothetical situation involving a person with high shock tolerance and mineral deficiency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of electrons versus ions in electric conduction during a shock. While some support the idea that ions are the primary charge carriers, others challenge the absolute statement that no electrons flow, indicating a lack of consensus on the mechanisms involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the mechanisms involved in electric conduction, particularly under different current types (AC vs. DC), and the assumptions regarding the mobility of charge carriers in the human body.

brendan_foo
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hi folks,

I was just looking into conduction as part of an electric shock, as in, the flow mechanism, when I ran across an article about such things, which states:

"However, NO ELECTRONS FLOWED THROUGH YOUR BODY AT ALL. The electric charges in a human body are entirely composed of positive and negative charged atoms. During your electrocution, it was these atoms which flowed along as an electric current. The electric current was a flow of positive sodium and potassium atoms, negative chlorine, and numerous other more complex positive and negative molecules."

This is taken in context about an electric shock.

Ok - for an electrostatic case, understandably surface electrons will naturally build up a net high potential and lead to a tiny low current shock etc.. etc.. But in regards to a shock due to electric current, in a conventional sense, surely the body acts as a conduit for electrons to flow.

The argument that the flow is of cat/anions present in the body seems plausable, but however, the body consists of a somewhat finite concentration of such charge carriers. To insist that "NO ELECTRONS FLOW" PERIOD, would suggest that the human body acts as a dielectric upon the point where the ions in the body converge to their respective opposite polarities. Thusly maintaining a potential difference across the body, but no current would surely flow after the transient current in the body subsides.

Also, isn't it ludicrous to think that such potassium, sodium etc.. ions would flow to a conductor and contribute a proportion of the algebraic sum of current.

This one threw me off a little.. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks
Brendan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to consider charge mobility in this case. Sure, there are electrons in our body, but are these electrons mobile? They aren't because metallic lattices do not occur naturally within the human body. Consequently they aren't going to carry any current.

Ions on the other hand ARE mobile, given the fact that we are 90% water and our blood in particular is a fairly good conduit for these ions to flow.

Since the ions are far more mobile, they will act as the charge carriers.

Now, in your scenario, once the ions have reached their opposite poles - they are no longer mobile and current flow would then fall to electrons. This does not happen until a good portion of the ions become immobilised however. This leads me to believe that when the articles says that no electrons flowed through your body at all, it is probably assuming that ions remain mobile enough throughout the electrocution to carry all the current, which is not an unreasonable assumption.

Claude.
 
Definitely a possible scenario that I considered, the case where the electrocution process occurs during a time frame where the body borne ions are still in a configuration where they could be charge carriers. So the assumption is on a long duration of transient current, by which time the subject in question would be long dead before any steady state is ever achieved. Makes sense; I just thought it was kind of dangerous to make such a bold statement without elaborating the mechanism in its entirety. I suppose I should've taken it into context. I had to clarify anyway.

Thankyou for your help!
 
If the article is talking about electrocution from an AC current (as would be expected), the steady state condition that Claude described would never occur. The current flowing through the body would then be almost entirely ionic. By saying "no electrons" are flowing, the article means to say that the ionic current vastly and overwhelmingly exceeds the electronic current.

Notice that I have to resort to highly subjective adjectives to support the statement made by that article. :wink:
 
Yes, certainly so!

Again, I should have stipulated my argument of the DC case. I just conjoured up a mental projection of a person of great stature and abnormal tolerance to shock and a mineral deficiency getting in the path of a DC line and eventually having some balloons sticking to him due to his polarization.:smile:

Cheers guys
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

High School Thought Experiment on Charge Carriers and Electrical Conduction
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
716
Undergrad PV cell: understanding electron movement in the conduction band
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Undergrad EM Faraday tensor transformation for conductor carrying current
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
What Explains the Lack of Current in a PN Junction at Equilibrium?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Are the electrons in the conduction band completely free?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad Is a Copper Conductor Directional?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Graduate Electric current in the human body
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
Undergrad What's the electric potential of the Earth?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Basic questions regarding theory of electrical capacitance
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding dissipation of energy in a resistor through the Drude model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K