Talk:Reduction potential

Antimicrobial comment
Removed a poorly phrased sentence about antimicrobial properties of water. If someone wants to look at the reference and write something more clear about what the reference actually says, please do so, but not in the opening paragraph. Not of broad enough import to be considered a top-level definition of redox potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB60:1F01:11:0:0:0:10C4 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxidation potential
I removed the ε from the symbols because that one is used for the molar attenuation coefficient. The one for redox potential is E0 '

The wording with in the first paragraph is a little loose
I suggest that: A solution with a higher reduction potential will have a tendency to gain electrons from new species (i.e. oxidize them) and a solution with a lower reduction potential will have a tendency to lose electrons to new species (i.e. reduce them).

Be changed to: A solution with a higher reduction potential than the new species will have a tendency to gain electrons from new species (i.e. oxidize them) and a solution with a lower reduction potential than the new species will have a tendency to lose electrons to new species (i.e. reduce them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.156.170 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change the first paragraph, gaining electrons is reducing not oxidizing check the article on Redox. 24.34.10.108 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed referenced wording (actually found in second paragraph)to include 'new species' as suggested, and embellished parenthetical clauses to hopefully clarify that the gaining of electrons (reduction) is by the species originally in solution through oxidation of the new species. Jjotter (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxidation potential
I know not much about chemistry but should oxidation potential be redirected here? They sound very similar just instead of getting electrons, it's losing electrons. Lyctc (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing so I've done it.--NHSavage (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're different things. While related, they are independent of one another. Oxidation potential should either have its own page, or no page at all; not a redirect. --67.176.198.143 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

pE / pH Analogy
In the statement, "... that pH does not characterize the acidity.", I think the author means to say that pE does not indicate the CAPACITY for red/ox in the same way that pH does not indicate the CAPACITY to neutralize an acid or a base. Instead they represent potentials (more analogous to a force, though that isn't accurate, either).

Also, and I haven't checked this out, shouldn't the pE be the NEGATIVE of the log of the "electron potential" (I don't recall if that is the proper term). So, two issues with the definition of pE: Changing "log" to "negative log" and changing the wording, "electron concentration" as there are no (or very few) free electrons.

I don't have the time right now to go back to my old P-Chem and Electrochem texts to make good changes myself. I'm sure many would appreciate it if someone could do that. Kent Johnson 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Units
In the introductory paragraph, it is stated that Eh is measured in volts or millivolts. In "Explanation" a conversion of pE = 16.9 Eh is suggested (thus Eh = pE/16.9), with no units specified for Eh (I'll assume that pE, like pH, is a unitless measurement). In "Environmental Chemistry" it is stated that pE in water ranges from -12 to 25, with no units specified for PE, equating to about -0.71 to 1.48 in unspecified units of Eh. I am now reading a report referencing water samples with Eh of 67.3 mV and -191.2 mV, equating to pE's of about 1137 and -3233 respectively if pE = 16.9 Eh/mV, or 1.137 and -3.233 if pE = 16.9 Eh/V. Therefore (because otherwise the water samples' pE's would be outside -12 to 25), I presume that the "Explanation" should be revised to "pE = 16.9 Eh/V" and that "Environmental Chemistry" should be revised to "-12 to 25 Volts", or the report I'm reading is inaccurate, or there are errors in these sections of the Wikipedia article (other than failure to specify units). However, I am not a chemist, and I'm unfamiliar with this subject. If anyone can clarify this matter, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.246 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Converting potentials between different types of reference electrodes
The table presented here differs from the information in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition, 1999, TABLE 2580:II. PREPARATION OF REDOX STANDARD SOLUTIONS. Not being a chemist, merely a user of such information, I am unable to judge which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.185.75 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire section is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. It doesn't aid in the understanding of redox potential, and just leads the reader astray with pointless conversion calculations that are only situationally and occasionally useful to a small number of scientists.68.54.124.105 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Does the definition violate IUPAC?
According to the gold book, "the redox potential is the reduction/oxidation potential of a compound measured under standards conditions against a standard reference half-cell." Gold Book: redox potential

To me, this article only describes the electrode potential measured in an aqueous solution. I know that there is plenty of primary literature using "redox potential" in this sense as well, but this is not the IUPAC definition. (Compare: Gold Book: electrode potential)

The German version of this article strictly follows the IUPAC guidelines. Can someone please enlighten me why the English article is more vague, or supplement the article with a reference for an alternative definition? 62.66.219.213 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Superscript/subscript
On some articles, I see the quantity "reduction potential under standard conditions" being abbreviated as E° and on others as E0. Which is correct? WikiMaster111 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Worse, I've also seen $$E^{\circ}$$ and $$E^{\ominus}$$ used for it as well. Some standard needs to be decided upon. CompyN (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)