| 查看: 1944 | 回复: 3 | ||
[求助]
关于HER的tafel测量问题 已有1人参与
|
|
本人电化学小白，最近在析氢测试，对于tafel斜率会进行拟合，但是对lsv的正负扫向问题很疑惑。 我知道析氢测试的lsv极化曲线是进行负扫，但看到有说tafel的拟合需要通过lsv正扫计算，通过测试这两者的拟合结果存在出入 负扫的tafel会更小一些。 那究竟正扫负扫哪个是正确的，为什么会存在出入呢，如果可以请帮我找到参考文献，谢谢大家了！ @Gamry-电化学 @langzhizhou @louderbe 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
2027年申博自荐信
已经有0人回复
-
电催化、芬顿、臭氧三大高级氧化工艺工程优缺点横向对比
已经有0人回复
-
分析化学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有171人回复
-
Journal of Alloys and Compounds投稿过程
已经有2人回复
-
澳大利亚皇家墨尔本理工大学（RMIT）理学院招收2027博士生
已经有62人回复
-
为什么现在电催化越来越卷？从“只看效果”到“全周期低成本”选型转变
已经有0人回复
-
电催化氧化反应器现场运维，不可忽视的安全风险与防控措施
已经有0人回复
-
电池测试中dQ/dV怎么理解
已经有1人回复
-
精细化工浓水做零排放，前端到底该配什么氧化工艺？
已经有0人回复
-
大湾区大学姚瑶课题组2027届博士生招生 （与中山大学联合培养）
已经有23人回复
2楼2018-03-21 15:24:50
3楼2018-03-27 01:14:08
【答案】应助回帖
|
首先， 对电位的正负规定，欧洲和美国的科学家，尤其在电催化领域，有些不同，看下面的介绍： https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El ... al#Sign_conventions Sign conventions Historically, two conventions for sign for the electrode potential have formed:[2] convention "Nernst–Lewis–Latimer" (sometimes referred to as "American"  ,convention "Gibbs–Ostwald–Stockholm" (sometimes referred to as "European" .In 1953 in Stockholm[3] IUPAC recognized that either of the conventions is permissible; however, it unanimously recommended that only the magnitude expressed according to the convention (2) be called "the electrode potential". To avoid possible ambiguities, the electrode potential thus defined can also be referred to as Gibbs–Stockholm electrode potential. In both conventions, the standard hydrogen electrode is defined to have a potential of 0 V. Both conventions also agree on the sign of E for a half-cell reaction when it is written as a reduction. The main difference between the two conventions[4] is that upon reversing the direction of a half-cell reaction as written, according to convention (1) the sign of E also switches, whereas in convention (2) it does not. The logic behind switching the sign of E is to maintain the correct sign relationship with the Gibbs free energy change, given by ΔG = -nFE where n is the number of electrons involved and F is the Faraday constant. It is assumed that the half-reaction is balanced by the appropriate SHE half-reaction. Since ΔG switches sign when a reaction is written in reverse, so to, proponents of convention (1) argue, should the sign of E. Proponents of convention (2) argue that it is more convenient to consider oxidants and reductants on the same scale. （2） 把BARD的JACS一篇文章， 放上，看其中的一种说法：析氢测试的lsv极化曲线是进行负扫: First, the MoS2 substrate potential was swept from 0 V to − 0.7 V at a scan rate of 5 mV/s to generate hydrogen continuously, and the hydrogen was then collected at the Pt UME tip. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org ... 7029b2749dc3581.pdf 欢迎其他专家给出见解。 |
4楼2018-03-27 03:21:11