Potential differences, liquid junction

Liquid Junction Potentials A liquid junction potential develops at the interface between any two ionic solutions that differ in composition and for which the mobility of the ions differs. Consider, for example, solutions of 0.1 M ITCl and 0.01 M ITCl separated by a porous membrane (Figure 11.6a). Since the concentration of ITCl on the left side of the membrane is greater than that on the right side of the membrane, there is a net diffusion of IT " and Ck in the direction of the arrows. The mobility of IT ", however, is greater than that for Ck, as shown by the difference in the... 

DIFFUSION POTENTIAL. When liquid junctions exist where two electrolytic solutions are in contact, as in the case of two solutions of different concentrations of the same electrolyte, diffusion of ions occurs between the solutions, and the differences in rales of diffusion of different ions set up an electrical double layer, having a difference of potential, known as Ihe diffusion potential nr liquid junction potential. 

Lippmann equation (for electrocapillary curves) (1.5.6.17), 1.5.100, 1.5.108, 3.138 liquid junction potentials see potential difference liquid-liquid interface. 

Liquid junctions. When two different liquids are in contact, usually through a porous separation, it is called a liquid junction. The concentrations of ions on either side of a liquid junction are generally not equal, hence there is a diffusional flow of ions. If the rates of flow of the different ions are unequal, a potential difference will be generated across the liquid junction. Such a potential is called the liquid junction potential. The liquid junction potential may be reduced by the use of a salt bridge, in which the flow of the positive and negative ions are nearly equal. 

As a result of a variable liquid-junction potential, the measured pH may be expected to differ seriously from the determined from cells without a liquid junction in solutions of high acidity or high alkalinity. Merely to affirm the proper functioning of the glass electrode at the extreme ends of the pH scale, two secondary standards are included in Table 8.14. In addition, values for a 0.1 m solution of HCl are given to extend the pH scale up to 275°C [see R. S. Greeley, Anal. Chem. 32 1717 (I960)] ... 

Electrode Potential (E) the difference in electrical potential between an electrode and the electrolyte with which it is in contact. It is best given with reference to the standard hydrogen electrode (S.H.E.), when it is equal in magnitude to the e.m.f. of a cell consisting of the electrode and the S.H.E. (with any liquid-junction potential eliminated). When in such a cell the electrode is the cathode, its electrode potential is positive when the electrode is the anode, its electrode potential is negative. When the species undergoing the reaction are in their standard states, E =, the stan-... 

In this scheme, a single vertical line represents a metal-electrolyte boundary at which a potential difference is taken into account the double vertical broken lines represent a liquid junction at which the potential is to be disregarded or is considered to be eliminated by a salt bridge. 

An electrode potential varies with the concentration of the ions in the solution. Hence two electrodes of the same metal, but immersed in solutions containing different concentrations of its ions, may form a cell. Such a cell is termed a concentration cell. The e.m.f. of the cell will be the algebraic difference of the two potentials, if a salt bridge be inserted to eliminate the liquid-liquid junction potential. It may be calculated as follows. At 25 °C ... 

Assuming that there is no potential difference at the liquid junction ... 

The small potential difference produced at the contact between the two solutions (the so-called liquid-junction potential) is neglected. 

Standard potentials Ee are evaluated with full regard to activity effects and with all ions present in simple form they are really limiting or ideal values and are rarely observed in a potentiometric measurement. In practice, the solutions may be quite concentrated and frequently contain other electrolytes under these conditions the activities of the pertinent species are much smaller than the concentrations, and consequently the use of the latter may lead to unreliable conclusions. Also, the actual active species present (see example below) may differ from those to which the ideal standard potentials apply. For these reasons formal potentials have been proposed to supplement standard potentials. The formal potential is the potential observed experimentally in a solution containing one mole each of the oxidised and reduced substances together with other specified substances at specified concentrations. It is found that formal potentials vary appreciably, for example, with the nature and concentration of the acid that is present. The formal potential incorporates in one value the effects resulting from variation of activity coefficients with ionic strength, acid-base dissociation, complexation, liquid-junction potentials, etc., and thus has a real practical value. Formal potentials do not have the theoretical significance of standard potentials, but they are observed values in actual potentiometric measurements. In dilute solutions they usually obey the Nernst equation fairly closely in the form ... 

Some commercial electrodes are supplied with a double junction. In such arrangements, the electrode depicted in Fig. 15.1(h) is mounted in a wider vessel of similar shape which also carries a porous disc at the lower end. This outer vessel may be filled with the same solution (e.g. saturated potassium chloride solution) as is contained in the electrode vessel in this case the main function of the double junction is to prevent the ingress of ions from the test solution which may interfere with the electrode. Alternatively, the outer vessel may contain a different solution from that involved in the electrode (e.g. 3M potassium nitrate or 3M ammonium nitrate solution), thus preventing chloride ions from the electrode entering the test solution. This last arrangement has the disadvantage that a second liquid junction potential is introduced into the system, and on the whole it is preferable wherever possible to choose a reference electrode which will not introduce interferences. 

Difference with respect to value calculated from accepted standard potential and activity coefficient is attributed to liquid junction potential. 

The influence of interfaeial potentials (diffusion or liquid junction potentials) established at the boundary between two different electrolyte solutions (based on e.g. aqueous and nonaqueous solvents) has been investigated frequently, for a thorough overview see Jakuszewski and Woszezak [68Jak2]. Concerning the usage of absolute and international Volt see preceding chapter. 

In the case of the cell with transference (1.20), the OCV includes an additional liquid-junction potential (a potential difference between electrolytes), and... 

The same reference electrode can be used to characterize electrodes in contact with different electrolytes therefore, the cell used to determine the electrode potential often includes a liquid junction (electrolyte-electrolyte interface). In this case the electrode potential is understood as being the corrected OCV value, which is the value for this cell after elimination of the hquid-junction potential. For instance, for the zinc electrode (2. b), the expression for the electrode potential can be written as... 

A representative ISE is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The electrode consists of a membrane, an internal reference electrolyte of fixed activity, (ai)i , ai and an internal reference electrode. The ISE is immersed in sample solution that contains analyte of some activity, (ajXampie and into which an external reference electrode is also immersed. The potential measured by the pH/mV meter (Eoe,) is equal to the difference in potential between the internal (Eraf.int) and external (Eref.ext) reference electrodes, plus the membrane potential (E emb), plus the liquid junction potential... 

Heterogeneous ET reactions at polarizable liquid-liquid interfaces have been mainly approached from current potential relationships. In this respect, a rather important issue is to minimize the contribution of ion-transfer reactions to the current responses associated with the ET step. This requirement has been recognized by several authors [43,62,67-72]. Firstly, reactants and products should remain in their respective phases within the potential range where the ET process takes place. In addition to redox stability, the supporting electrolytes should also provide an appropriate potential window for the redox reaction. According to Eqs. (2) and (3), the redox potentials of the species involved in the ET should match in a way that the formal electron-transfer potential occurs within the potential window established by the transfer of the ionic species present at the liquid-liquid junction. The results shown in Figs. 1 and 2 provide an example of voltammetric ET responses when the above conditions are fulfilled. A difference of approximately 150 mV is observed between Ao et A" (.+. ... 

Under potentiostatic conditions, the photocurrent dynamics is not only determined by faradaic elements, but also by double layer relaxation. A simplified equivalent circuit for the liquid-liquid junction under illumination at a constant DC potential is shown in Fig. 18. The difference between this case and the one shown in Fig. 7 arises from the type of perturbation introduced to the interface. For impedance measurements, a modulated potential is superimposed on the DC polarization, which induces periodic responses in connection with the ET reaction as well as transfer of the supporting electrolyte. In principle, periodic light intensity perturbations at constant potential do not affect the transfer behavior of the supporting electrolyte, therefore this element does not contribute to the frequency-dependent photocurrent. As further clarified later, the photoinduced ET... 

In initial ET rate measurements, both the NB and aqueous phases contained 0.1 M TEAP, enabling measurements to be made with a constant Galvani potential difference across the liquid junction. In these early studies, the concentration of Fc used in the organic phase (phase 2) was at least 50 times the concentration of the electroactive mediator in the aqueous phase which contained the probe UME (phase 1). This ensured that the interfacial process was not limited by mass transport in the organic phase, and that the simple constant-composition model, described briefly in Section IV, could be used. 

---