| ²é¿´: 492 | »Ø¸´: 2 | ||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | ||
Ê«Ïæ×Óľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
Æ´ÃüÈýÄï
|
[ÇóÖú]
Çëµç»¯Ñ§ÀíÂÛ´óÉñÖ¸µãÏÂÈçºÎ»Ø´ðÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û ÒÑÓÐ2È˲ÎÓë
|
|
|
ÂÛÎĸù¾ÝCVÇúÏß½âÊÍ·´Ó¦»úÀí£¬È»ºóÓû¼ÆËã·´Ó¦ÖÊ×Ӻ͵ç×ӵıÈÀý£¬¸ù¾ÝdEp/dpH = 2.303mRT/nFµÃ³öm/n=0.82½Ó½ü1£¬ËµÃ÷µç×ÓºÍÖÊ×ÓÊýÄ¿Ïàͬ¡£ Comment 1£ºI strongly against authors' explanation that m/n of 0.82 means the same number of protons and electrons are involved. Also I cannot agree with them that slope of 48.2 mV is very close to Nernstian slope of 59 mV. How could this conclusion be made? Although some literatures show the similar results, that does not mean their explanation is correct. That is why I suggest to introduce parameter beta to explain those phenomena. For example, a glass electrode does not show exact 59 mV dependence upon pH. The value is little lower than that. That's why people introduce beta to correct it. I hope this helps authors revise the manuscript. |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
ÕÐÊÕ
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
Î÷ÄÏij211ÕÐ27½ì²©Ê¿
ÒѾÓÐ33È˻ظ´
ÎïÀí»¯Ñ§ÂÛÎÄÈóÉ«/·ÒëÔõôÊÕ·Ñ?
ÒѾÓÐ153È˻ظ´
´óÁ¬¹¤Òµ½ÜÇà/³¤½ÍŶÓ-ÉúÎïÖʲÄÁÏ-´¢ÄÜµç³Ø·½ÏòÕÐÊÕ2026¼¶²©Ê¿Éú
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼ÁÒ»Ö¾Ô¸º£´ó£¬0703»¯Ñ§Ñ§Ë¶304·Ö£¬Óдó´´ÏîÄ¿£¬Ëļ¶Òѹý
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
070300 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ1È˻ظ´
ÉîÛÚ´óѧ¸ßµÈÑо¿ÔºÕÔΰ¿ÎÌâ×éÕÐÊÕ»¯Ñ§µ÷¼ÁÉú
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
Çൺ´óѧ¹Ì̬µç³ØÑо¿ÍŶÓÕÐÊÕ²ÄÁÏ¡¢»¯Ñ§¡¢ÎïÀíµÈ·½Ïò²©Ê¿Ñо¿Éú
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
»¯Ñ§¹¤³Ì085602 305·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
È£²¡ÓëÑÀÖܲ¡µÄ±íÊö
ÒѾÓÐ0È˻ظ´
070300»¯Ñ§Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´

СëÇò
°æÖ÷ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- ECEPI: 6
- Ó¦Öú: 428 (˶ʿ)
- ¹ó±ö: 1.955
- ½ð±Ò: 44890.1
- É¢½ð: 100
- ºì»¨: 85
- ɳ·¢: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 6336
- ÔÚÏß: 995.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 820516
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-02
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¸ßµÈ½ÌÓýѧ
- ¹ÜϽ: µç»¯Ñ§

3Â¥2016-04-05 09:00:29
ºúç÷
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- ECEPI: 3
- Ó¦Öú: 830 (²©ºó)
- ½ð±Ò: 10236.1
- É¢½ð: 500
- ºì»¨: 68
- Ìû×Ó: 2977
- ÔÚÏß: 881.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1346956
- ×¢²á: 2011-07-15
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ÓлúºÏ³É
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
| Éó¸åÈË˵ÄãµÄÄǸöбÂÊ48.2mv±È59»¹µÍ£¬Ò»°ãµÄ¶¼ÊDZÈ59´óһЩ£¬ÄãÒªÔõô½âÊÍÕâ¸ö£¬»¹ÓоÍÊÇm/n½Ó½ü1˵Ã÷m=nÕâ¸öÉó¸åÈËҲǿÁÒ²»ÔÞͬ¡£ |

2Â¥2016-04-04 00:27:23













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥