Talk:Standard electrode potential (data page)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Can someone please explain to me why Li has a lower value than K (for example), but K is more electropositive? Thanks... -postglock 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It has to do with the solvation of the Li+ ion. Because Li+ binds water molecules so strongly, it is very favourable to create solvated lithium ions in aqueous solution and the electrode potential is very negative. Electronegativity does not consider solvation, as it concerns either molecules or ions in the gas phase (Pauling and Mulliken electronegativities respectively). Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Physchim62, excellent response... -postglock 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The standard reduction potential for Ce4+(aq) + e- → Ce3+(aq) is missing from the table. I've tried searching for a value for this, but all I end up with are contradictions. Does anyone have an Eo for this from a reliable source? 199.90.6.26 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


The values below are standard electrode potentials taken at 298 K, 1 bar pressure and in aqueous solution, of concentration 1 molar

This is not accurate, all activities should be 1 M, not concentrations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.52.189 (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

for Ce4+(aq) + e- → Ce3+(aq), try http://www.jesuitnola.org/upload/clark/Refs/red_pot.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd456 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable table

The sortable table (which is new as of today) is great. The only difficulty is that it missorts the "≡ 0" line when you sort by potential. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a bug in sorting with negative numbers. Let us hope it will get fixed one day. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be doing an alpha sort instead of a numeric sort. That's why it comes out like it does, '+' is before '-' in ASCII order. Hgrosser (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It now sorts correctly by potential, but only from negative to positive (click 3 times) and not in Safari. Hgrosser (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Seems to work really well. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] → or ⇌

I think the equations should use ⇌ instead of → . After all, the data are for chemical equilibrium. Would anybody have a better typographic suggestion or other preferences? Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For my taste, \rightleftarrows and -3.05 −3.05 (as suggested by Hgrosser) look better than ↔ and -3.05. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)