icd code for schizophrenia - MywallpapersMobi

icd code for schizophrenia

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 174 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

  1. Log In
    Sign Up

  2. current community

    • Chemistry


    • Chemistry Meta

    your communities

    Sign up or log in to customize your list.

    more stack exchange communities

    company blog

    • Tour

      Start here for a quick overview of the site

    • Help Center

      Detailed answers to any questions you might have

    • Meta

      Discuss the workings and policies of this site

    • About Us

      Learn more about Stack Overflow the company

    • Business

      Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Service .


  • Questions

  • Tags

  • Users

  • Badges

  • Unanswered

  • Ask Question

Butler-Volmer equation with concentration dependence?

up vote
down vote


For a simple elementary reaction on electrode

O+e^-\rightleftharpoons R

We can derive the Butler-Volmer equation. But it seems that the formula found on John Newman’s Electrochemical System seems to be different from the one found on Allen Bard’s Electrochemical Methods , both of which are considered classics. Below is my understanding, if not incorrect.

In the most general case, Newman writes

i = i_0\biggl[\exp\biggl(\frac(1-\beta)nFRT\eta_s\biggr)-\exp\biggl(-\frac\beta nFRT\eta_s\biggr) \biggr]

where $\eta_s=V-U$. $U$ is the equilibrium which depends on the surface concentration, and so do $i_0$, the exchange current.

Bard, on the other hand, writes, in the most general case, the current-overpotential equation
i_n = i_0\biggl[\fracC_OC_O^*\exp\biggl(-\frac\alpha nFRT\eta_s\biggr)-\fracC_RC_R^*\exp\biggl(\frac(1-\alpha) nFRT\eta_s\biggr) \biggr]
which only leads to Butler-Volmer equation if mass-transfer is not concerned. Here $\eta_s=E-E_eq$ (with its notation). $E_eq$ is the equilibrium potential established on bulk concentration, which is a constant taken to be initial condition. $i_0$ is dependent on the bulk concentration.

Aside from the anodic, cathodic sign convention different, what Bard has written explicitly depends on the surface concentration, which in a sense suggest that even if the over-potential is negative (which, in Bard’s convention, leads to positive cathodic current), anodic reaction can still be established if $C_R$ is sufficiently high.

The more widely known equation (also found in Bockris’s Modern Electrochemistry vol.2) is the one Newman wrote. But the equation will only lead to (in Newman’s convention) positive anodic current if the over-potential $\eta_s$ is positive, even if $C_O$ dominates (which leads to cathodic current in Bard’s formula).

It seems that the derivation differ on the reference potential: Newman sets equilibrium potential $U$ to be dependent on the surface concentration while Bard let it be referenced to the open-circuit potential with bulk concentration. What’s right and wrong?

reaction-mechanism electrochemistry redox kinetics

share | improve this question

edited Sep 9 ’15 at 16:12

asked Sep 9 ’15 at 15:04



add a comment  | 

1 Answer




up vote
down vote


I just figure it out that both are right (of course!). It’s just that the definition of over-potential $\eta_s$ is different. In the case of Newman’s, positive $\eta_s$ will guarantee positive (anodic) current. Here $\eta_s=V-U=\phi_metal-\phi_solution-U$ is positive in the sense that $V>U$, where $U$ is the equilibrium potential corresponding to the surface concentration. Whereas in the case of Bard’s, sometimes positive $\eta_s$ will lead to positive (cathodic) current if $C_O$ is sufficiently large (possibly with convention or precipitation). But here $\eta_s=V-E_eq$, and $E_eq$ is defined as equilibrium potential corresponding to bulk (initial) condition. So the value of $V$ here will result in negative $\eta_s$ in the case of Newman’s

In short, it’s just that the sign of over-potential is different with their corresponding definition of equilibrium potential.

share | improve this answer

answered Sep 10 ’15 at 4:48



  • The difference between the approaches is also in the definition of the reaction rate. Bard assumed the bulk concentration is the same as the surface concentration in equilibrium (Nernst equation). Newman did not use this assumption.
    –  Ronen
    Aug 8 ’17 at 19:38

add a comment  | 

Not the answer you’re looking for? Browse other questions tagged reaction-mechanism electrochemistry redox kinetics or ask your own question .


3 years, 2 months ago


1,370 times


1 year, 3 months ago



Standard electrode potential of a galvanic half cell is zero at equilibrium at standard conditions?


Electrochemical half cell without redox couple


What is the relationship between migration and the potential of double layer theory?


Half cell method of voltage calculation in an electrochemical cell


Electrolysis of dilute and concentrated sodium chloride and the Nernst equation


Is concentration polarisation an observable phenomenon over time in a galvanic cell?


What is A in the following equation


Coming up with a Mathematical Model to Predict how long a redox reaction can last


Concept of Limiting Current


Computing i0 in the Butler-Volmer equation: How to interpret Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha

Hot Network Questions

  • Is there a term for "the user can’t use anything wrong" design?

  • Why is Carlsen being praised for his tie-break play, when Caruana made several game-losing moves?

  • Why can’t the word "can" be used in future tense (will can)?

  • What is the longest-lasting protein in a human body?

  • Secure way to login to a website on someone else’s computer

  • Why is it ‘expected’ that software developers work on their own projects in their spare time?

  • What is it called when authors trade citations?

  • Is item rarity really tied to how powerful it is?

  • Why is my bag never one of the first on the carousel?

  • How was copying prevented when the first CD-ROM games were introduced?

  • Always a full Moon for the Emperor – Can this be achieved with solar panels and LEDs?

  • What does the "DO NOT USE FOR NAVIGATION" indication mean?

  • If the brightness of the built-in display is turned black, can it be considered off?

  • As a player with ADHD, how do I avoid disrupting the game?

  • Can women also go shirtless in public legally?

  • How do I prevent "s from turning into ß with babel?

  • Prime containment numbers (golf edition)

  • What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?

  • Differences between logic with and without equality

  • What is the origin of the phrase ‘orc and pie’?

  • Real Analysis – Continuity

  • What logical fallacy is "If you don’t like it, move!"?

  • Time Warp: Modern chemist as court alchemist

  • example.com -> typing ip address directly -> does not load the website

more hot questions

question feed

Chemistry Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled