What Role Does Seawater and HCl Play in Electrochemical Corrosion?

AI Thread Summary
Seawater enhances ionic conductivity, facilitating electrochemical reactions between electrodes by providing a medium for ion movement. In the case of gold and copper electrodes in HCl, both metals are considered noble, leading to minimal oxidation and corrosion under normal conditions. The role of HCl is primarily to improve conductivity rather than induce significant reactions between the metals. Actual corrosion is unlikely to occur unless specific conditions, such as the presence of oxygen, are introduced, which could lead to the formation of copper oxide deposits. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of ionic content in facilitating conductivity without necessarily causing corrosion in noble metal systems.
Alvine Alvin
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

So this isn't actually my homework, I've been assigned to TA an electrochemistry lab. Problem is, I know almost nothing about electrochemistry and although I've tried to learn I'm still a bit rusty (har har!). The lab involves immersing different electrodes in seawater in a single beaker and measuring the potentials across them, and I have a few questions:

1)What exactly does the seawater do? If the potential is higher because of it then presumably it increases ionic conductivity. But the metals will almost certainly both be more cathodic than sodium and what should happen is that the anode is oxidised and then its ions move to the cathode and are reduced, right? So where does the ionic content of the seawater come into it? does it just shield the free ions and make it easier for them to move?

2)There is a 'discussion question' which asks what would happen if I joined gold and copper electrodes in a beaker of HCl. What happens here? Presumably copper is oxidised at the anode and moves to the cathode? What does the HCl achieve?

3)Then they ask if 'actual corrosion' would happen in this case? I don't know what this means. They ask if it would happen if we bubble air though the solution. If we did that presumbly the Cu(II) ions could react with O2 and form deposits of CuO on the gold electrode? But even if we did not I think that copper would still be degraded and deposited onto the gold electrode?

If you guys can provide any guidance on these, that would be wonderful!

Thanks,

Alvin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seawater is just a (relatively) good conductor - you need to close the circuit.

Gold and copper in HCl - IMHO nothing should happen, both are noble metals.

No idea what they mean by 'actual'. But as I don't expect any oxidation to take place, I bet there will be no corrosion, unless it will be called 'nonexistent' or 'imaginary'.
 
So the Na+ and Cl- ions don't do anything, they just improve conduction of the metal ions?

Surely some potential is established between gold and copper though, as they have different positions in the emf series?
 
Alvine Alvin said:
So the Na+ and Cl- ions don't do anything, they just improve conduction of the metal ions?

Conductivity of the solution.

Surely some potential is established between gold and copper though, as they have different positions in the emf series?

Yes, but regardless of that surfaces of both are still at the safe potential (above hydrogen half cell). That's not the case when you connect iron/magnesium, iron/zinc, copper/zinc and so on - but it is always at least one metal that is more active than hydrogen.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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