Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Electroanalytical methods.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Electroanalytical methods
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
Electroanalytical methods are a class of techniques in analytical chemistry which study an analyte by measuring the potential (volts) and/or current (amperes) in an electrochemical cell containing the analyte.[1][2][3][4] These methods can be broken down into several categories depending on which aspects of the cell are controlled and which are measured. The three main categories are potentiometry (the difference in electrode potentials is measured), amperometry (electric current is the analytical signal), coulometry (charge passed during a certain time is recorded).
Potentiometry
[edit]Potentiometry passively measures the potential of a solution between two electrodes, affecting the solution very little in the process. One electrode is called the reference electrode and has a constant potential, while the other one is an indicator electrode whose potential changes with the sample's composition. Therefore, the difference in potential between the two electrodes gives an assessment of the sample's composition. In fact, since the potentiometric measurement is a non-destructive measurement, assuming that the electrode is in equilibrium with the solution, we are measuring the solution's potential. Potentiometry usually uses indicator electrodes made selectively sensitive to the ion of interest, such as fluoride in fluoride selective electrodes, so that the potential solely depends on the activity of this ion of interest. The time that takes the electrode to establish equilibrium with the solution will affect the sensitivity or accuracy of the measurement. In aquatic environments, platinum is often used due to its high electron transfer kinetics,[5] although an electrode made from several metals can be used in order to enhance the electron transfer kinetics.[6] The most common potentiometric electrode is by far the glass-membrane electrode used in a pH meter.
A variant of potentiometry is chronopotentiometry which consists in using a constant current and measurement of potential as a function of time. It has been initiated by Weber.[7]
Amperometry
[edit]Amperometry indicates the whole of electrochemical techniques in which a current is measured as a function of an independent variable that is, typically, time (in a chronoamperometry) or electrode potential (in a voltammetry). Chronoamperometry is the technique in which the current is measured, at a fixed potential, at different times since the start of polarisation. Chronoamperometry is typically carried out in unstirred solution and at the fixed electrode, i.e., under experimental conditions avoiding convection as the mass transfer to the electrode. On the other hand, voltammetry is a subclass of amperometry, in which the current is measured by varying the potential applied to the electrode. According to the waveform that describes the way how the potential is varied as a function of time, the different voltammetric techniques are defined.
Chronoamperometry
[edit]In a chronoamperometry, a sudden step in potential is applied at the working electrode and the current is measured as a function of time.[8] Since this is not an exhaustive method, microelectrodes are used and the amount of time used to perform the experiments is usually very short, typically 20 ms to 1 s, as to not consume the analyte.
Voltammetry
[edit]A voltammetry consists in applying a constant and/or varying potential at an electrode's surface and measuring the resulting current with a three-electrode system. This method can reveal the reduction potential of an analyte and its electrochemical reactivity. This method, in practical terms, is non-destructive since only a very small amount of the analyte is consumed at the two-dimensional surface of the working and auxiliary electrodes. In practice, the analyte solution is usually disposed of since it is difficult to separate the analyte from the bulk electrolyte, and the experiment requires a small amount of analyte. A normal experiment may involve 1–10 mL solution with an analyte concentration between 1 and 10 mmol/L. More advanced voltammetric techniques can work with microliter volumes and down to nanomolar concentrations. Chemically modified electrodes are employed for the analysis of organic and inorganic samples.
Polarography
[edit]Polarography is a subclass of voltammetry that uses a dropping mercury electrode as the working electrode.
Coulometry
[edit]Coulometry uses applied current or potential to convert an analyte from one oxidation state to another completely. In these experiments, the total current passed is measured directly or indirectly to determine the number of electrons passed. Knowing the number of electrons passed can indicate the concentration of the analyte or when the concentration is known, the number of electrons transferred in the redox reaction. Typical forms of coulometry include bulk electrolysis, also known as Potentiostatic coulometry or controlled potential coulometry, as well as a variety of coulometric titrations.
References
[edit]- ^ Skoog, Douglas A.; Donald M. West; F. James Holler (1995-08-25). Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry (7th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers. ISBN 978-0-03-005938-4.
- ^ Kissinger, Peter; William R. Heineman (1996-01-23). Laboratory Techniques in Electroanalytical Chemistry, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (2 ed.). CRC. ISBN 978-0-8247-9445-3.
- ^ Bard, Allen J.; Larry R. Faulkner (2000-12-18). Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications (2 ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-04372-0.
- ^ Zoski, Cynthia G. (2007-02-07). Handbook of Electrochemistry. Elsevier Science. ISBN 978-0-444-51958-0.
- ^ Grundl, Tim (1994-02-01). "A review of the current understanding of redox capacity in natural, disequilibrium systems". Chemosphere. 28 (3): 613–626. Bibcode:1994Chmsp..28..613G. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(94)90303-4.
- ^ Noyhouzer, T.; Valdinger, I.; Mandler, D. (2013-09-03). "Enhanced Potentiometry by Metallic Nanoparticles". Analytical Chemistry. 85 (17): 8347–8353. doi:10.1021/ac401744w. ISSN 0003-2700. PMID 23947748.
- ^ H. F. Weber, Wied. Ann., 7, 536, 1879
- ^ Bard, Allen J.; Faulkner, Larry R.; White, Henry S. (2022). Electrochemical methods: fundamentals and applications (Third ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-33405-7.
Bibliography
[edit]- Wang, Joseph C. (2000). Analytical electrochemistry. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-28272-3.
- Hubert H. Girault (2004). Analytical and physical electrochemistry. [Lausanne: EPFL. ISBN 978-0-8247-5357-3.
- Ozomwna, Kenneth I., ed. (2007). Recent Advances in Analytical Electrochemistry 2007. Transworld Research Network. ISBN 978-81-7895-274-1.
- Dahmen, E. A. M. F. (1986). Electroanalysis: theory and applications in aqueous and non-aqueous media and in automated chemical control. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-42534-8.
- Bond, A. Curtis (1980). Modern polarographic methods in analytical chemistry. New York: M. Dekker. ISBN 978-0-8247-6849-2.
| Instrumentation | |
|---|---|
| Techniques | |
| Sampling | |
| Calibration | |
| Prominent publications | |
Electroanalytical methods
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Electroanalytical methods encompass a diverse set of techniques in analytical chemistry that investigate chemical analytes by measuring electrical properties, such as potential, current, or charge, within an electrochemical cell.[1] These methods rely on the principles of electron transfer reactions at the interface between an electrode and an electrolyte solution, where the applied or measured electrical signals correlate directly with the analyte's concentration, redox behavior, or reaction kinetics.[2] By exploiting heterogeneous processes involving electrodes—typically composed of materials like platinum, glassy carbon, or mercury—and supporting electrolytes, electroanalytical techniques enable precise control over reaction conditions through factors such as electrode surface chemistry and solution composition.[1]
The primary categories of electroanalytical methods include potentiometric, voltammetric, coulometric, and amperometric approaches, each distinguished by the electrical parameter emphasized and the mode of operation. Potentiometry measures the potential difference between electrodes at zero current flow, commonly used for ion-selective sensing, such as pH electrodes or detection of specific cations and anions.[2] Voltammetry, the most versatile group, applies a varying potential while monitoring current, encompassing techniques like cyclic voltammetry (CV) for studying redox mechanisms, differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), and square-wave voltammetry (SWV) for enhanced sensitivity in trace analysis.[3] Coulometry quantifies analytes by integrating current over time to determine total charge passed during electrolysis, offering absolute measurements independent of cell constants.[1] Amperometry maintains a fixed potential to measure steady-state current proportional to analyte diffusion, often integrated into flow systems like biosensors.[4] Advanced variants, such as stripping voltammetry or electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, further improve selectivity through preconcentration steps or frequency-domain analysis.[2]
Electroanalytical methods are prized for their exceptional sensitivity—often achieving detection limits in the nanomolar range—and versatility across diverse matrices, making them indispensable in fields like environmental monitoring for pollutants, pharmaceutical quality control for drug quantification, and clinical diagnostics for biomarkers such as glucose.[4] Their non-destructive nature for many techniques, combined with the ability to provide mechanistic insights into electron transfer processes, supports applications in organic synthesis, electrocatalysis, and biosensor development.[3] Recent advancements, including electrode modifications with nanomaterials, have expanded their scope to real-time in situ analysis, underscoring their ongoing evolution as robust tools in modern analytical science.[2]
General Principles
Electrochemical Cells and Electrodes
In electroanalytical methods, electrochemical cells serve as the fundamental apparatus for studying redox processes through controlled interactions between electrodes and an electrolyte solution. Galvanic cells rely on spontaneous redox reactions to generate an electrical potential, whereas electrolytic cells apply an external voltage to drive non-spontaneous reactions, with the latter being predominant in techniques requiring precise potential control. The typical setup emphasizes three-electrode configurations to enhance measurement accuracy by isolating the working electrode's response from solution resistance effects. In this system, the working electrode is where the target analyte undergoes oxidation or reduction, the reference electrode maintains a stable potential for comparison, and the counter electrode supplies or accepts electrons to balance the circuit, all immersed in a shared electrolyte compartment.[5][6] Early electroanalytical work in the 19th century utilized simple two-electrode systems, where the working and counter functions were combined, limiting precision due to uncompensated resistance. The shift to three-electrode systems occurred in the 1940s, driven by Archie Hickling's invention of the potentiostat, which enabled independent control of the working electrode potential relative to the reference, significantly improving reproducibility and accuracy in experiments.[7] This configuration remains standard, as it minimizes iR drop—the voltage loss from current flow through the solution—and allows for reliable data in diverse analytical applications. Working electrodes are selected based on the need for inertness to avoid interference with analyte reactions; platinum electrodes, made from polished wire or foil, offer excellent conductivity and a broad potential range in aqueous media. Glassy carbon electrodes, formed by pyrolyzing a polymer precursor into a non-porous, amorphous carbon structure, provide chemical stability, low background currents, and resistance to adsorption, making them ideal for organic and biochemical analyses. Mercury-based electrodes, such as the dropping mercury electrode (DME) introduced by Jaroslav Heyrovský for polarography, feature a vertical glass capillary connected to a mercury reservoir, where drops form and detach at controlled intervals (typically 3-5 seconds) to renew the surface and suppress polarization effects.[8][9] Reference electrodes ensure a constant potential benchmark; the saturated calomel electrode (SCE) consists of a glass tube containing a mercury pool covered by a paste of mercury and mercurous chloride (Hg/Hg₂Cl₂), filled with saturated potassium chloride solution, and connected to the external medium via a porous ceramic frit or fiber junction to allow ionic contact while preventing contamination. The silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) electrode comprises a silver wire coated with silver chloride (often as a paste or sintered layer) immersed in a potassium chloride solution (typically 3 M or saturated), housed in a similar tube with a salt bridge for isolation. Counter electrodes are usually inert platinum wires or meshes to facilitate efficient current passage without altering the solution composition.[10][11] Electrolyte solutions are essential for maintaining ionic conductivity and supporting charge transfer; they commonly include supporting electrolytes like potassium nitrate (KNO₃), sodium chloride (NaCl), or tetramethylammonium salts at concentrations of 0.1-1 M in aqueous or non-aqueous solvents to reduce ohmic resistance, minimize electrostatic migration of analyte ions, and stabilize the double layer at the electrode interface. The choice of composition depends on the analyte's solubility and the method's requirements, ensuring uniform ion distribution without introducing side reactions.[12]Electrode Potentials and the Nernst Equation
The equilibrium potential at an electrode-solution interface arises from the balance between oxidation and reduction half-cell reactions, where the electrochemical potential of the oxidized and reduced species is equal. This potential reflects the thermodynamic driving force for the electron transfer process at the interface, governed by the activities of the species involved in the half-reaction.[13] The Nernst equation quantifies this equilibrium potential for a general half-cell reaction of the form Oxidized + ne⁻ ⇌ Reduced. It is derived from the relationship between the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG) and the cell potential (E), where ΔG = -nFE, combined with the standard expression for ΔG = ΔG° + RT ln Q, leading to -nFE = -nFE° + RT ln Q. Rearranging yields E = E° - (RT/nF) ln Q, where E is the electrode potential, E° is the standard electrode potential, R is the gas constant (8.314 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹), T is the absolute temperature in Kelvin, n is the number of electrons transferred, F is Faraday's constant (96485 C mol⁻¹), and Q is the reaction quotient defined as the ratio of activities (or concentrations for dilute solutions) of products to reactants.[13] At 25°C (298 K), this simplifies to the logarithmic form E = E° - (0.059/n) log Q, using common logarithms for practical calculations.[13] Standard electrode potentials (E°) are referenced to the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE), defined by IUPAC as a platinum electrode in contact with a solution of unit activity H⁺ ions (1 M) and H₂ gas at 1 bar pressure, assigned an E° of 0 V for the half-reaction 2H⁺ + 2e⁻ ⇌ H₂.[14] For example, the standard reduction potential for the Fe³⁺/Fe²⁺ couple is +0.771 V versus SHE at 25°C and pH 0, indicating that Fe³⁺ is a stronger oxidant than H⁺ under standard conditions.[15] The electrode potential is sensitive to changes in solution conditions through the Q term. Concentration influences the potential logarithmically; for the Ag⁺ + e⁻ ⇌ Ag half-reaction with E° = +0.799 V, a tenfold decrease in [Ag⁺] from 1 M to 0.1 M shifts E to +0.740 V at 25°C, as log(1/[Ag⁺]) = +1.[15] Temperature affects the RT/nF factor, increasing the slope of the logarithmic term and thus amplifying concentration effects; for instance, at 50°C, the coefficient becomes approximately 0.070/n instead of 0.059/n.[13] For half-reactions involving H⁺, such as the quinone/hydroquinone couple Q + 2H⁺ + 2e⁻ ⇌ QH₂ with E° ≈ +0.699 V, the potential decreases by 0.059 V per pH unit increase at 25°C, since Q includes [H⁺]², making E = E° - (0.059/2) log([QH₂]/[Q][H⁺]²).[13] In metal ion systems without direct H⁺ involvement, like Cu²⁺/Cu⁺ (E° = +0.153 V), pH effects are indirect through speciation or hydrolysis, but concentration changes dominate, with E shifting by -0.059 log([Cu⁺]/[Cu²⁺]) at 25°C.[15]Faradaic and Capacitive Currents
In electroanalytical methods, currents at the electrode-solution interface arise from two primary mechanisms: Faradaic processes involving electron transfer and non-Faradaic processes due to interfacial charging. Faradaic currents result from redox reactions where electrons are transferred between the electrode and solution species, directly linking the current to the rate of chemical transformation according to Faraday's laws. These currents are proportional to the reaction rate, with the magnitude determined by the number of electrons transferred (n), the Faraday constant (F ≈ 96,485 C/mol), and the electrode area (A), such that the rate in mol/s equals i / (n F).[16] The kinetics of Faradaic currents are described by the Butler-Volmer equation, which relates the net current density (i) to the overpotential (η = E - E_eq), where E is the applied potential and E_eq is the equilibrium potential. The equation is: Here, i_0 is the exchange current density, α is the transfer coefficient (typically 0.3–0.7), R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. This form captures both anodic and cathodic contributions, with the exponential terms reflecting activation barriers for oxidation and reduction, respectively.[16] For irreversible processes, large overpotentials make one exponential term negligible, simplifying to the Tafel equation and highlighting kinetic limitations beyond thermodynamic equilibrium.[16] In contrast, capacitive currents, also known as non-Faradaic or charging currents, originate from the accumulation of charge in the electrical double layer at the electrode surface, without net electron transfer to solution species. This layer behaves like a capacitor, with double-layer capacitance per unit area typically 10–40 μF/cm² for aqueous solutions (total C = c_dl A), and the current is given by: where dE/dt is the rate of change of potential.[16] These currents are particularly prominent during potential transients, such as in voltammetric scans, and model the interface as an RC circuit where the double-layer capacitance is in parallel with Faradaic resistance.[16] Several factors influence the relative contributions of Faradaic and capacitive currents. Capacitive currents scale linearly with scan rate (v = dE/dt), increasing background noise at faster sweeps and potentially obscuring Faradaic signals, whereas reversible Faradaic currents in techniques like cyclic voltammetry exhibit peak currents proportional to v^{1/2} due to diffusion control.[16] Irreversibility in Faradaic processes, characterized by slow electron transfer rates (low i_0 or extreme α), shifts the current-potential response, broadening peaks and reducing sensitivity compared to reversible systems. Electrode surface area and solution resistance also amplify capacitive effects, as larger areas increase C and uncompensated resistance (R_u) lengthens the charging time constant (τ = R_u C).[16] Quantitative separation of these currents is essential for accurate analysis, particularly in cyclic voltammetry where Faradaic peaks overlay a capacitive baseline. One approach involves plotting peak current against scan rate: capacitive components yield a linear relationship through the origin, while Faradaic contributions show linearity with v^{1/2} for diffusion-limited processes, allowing subtraction via baseline correction or regression fitting.[17] In practice, techniques like square-wave voltammetry minimize capacitive interference by sampling differential currents, enhancing Faradaic signal resolution.[16]Potentiometric Methods
Direct Potentiometry
Direct potentiometry is an electroanalytical technique that quantifies the activity of an analyte ion by measuring the open-circuit potential difference between an ion-selective indicator electrode and a reference electrode under conditions of zero or negligible current flow. This zero-current method ensures minimal perturbation to the sample, allowing the potential to directly reflect the electrochemical equilibrium at the electrode-solution interface. The measured potential arises from the selective interaction of the target ion with the indicator electrode's sensing element, such as a membrane or crystal, which establishes a phase boundary potential proportional to the ion's activity in solution.[18][19] The relationship between the measured potential and analyte activity follows a logarithmic response, as described by the Nernst equation, where the electrode potential changes by approximately 59 mV per decade change in activity for monovalent ions at 25°C, known as the Nernstian slope. Calibration curves are constructed by plotting the potential against the logarithm of known analyte activities, yielding a linear segment typically spanning several orders of magnitude, from which unknown concentrations can be determined via interpolation. This logarithmic dependence arises from the thermodynamic basis of ion partitioning at the electrode interface, enabling sensitive detection down to trace levels in many cases, though the exact slope and linear range depend on the electrode material and solution conditions.[20][21] A classic example of direct potentiometry is pH measurement using the glass electrode, where a thin, hydrated silicate glass membrane selectively responds to hydrogen ions, generating a potential that varies linearly with pH over the range of 0 to 14. This electrode, developed in the early 20th century and widely adopted for its robustness and accuracy, pairs with a reference electrode like calomel or Ag/AgCl to form a complete cell for routine laboratory and industrial pH monitoring. Another prominent application is fluoride ion analysis with lanthanum fluoride (LaF₃) electrodes, which utilize a single-crystal membrane to detect fluoride activities as low as 10⁻⁶ M, as pioneered in the 1960s for water quality assessment and dental product evaluation. These solid-state electrodes exhibit near-Nernstian slopes of about -59 mV/decade and high selectivity for F⁻ over common interferents.[22][23] Selectivity in direct potentiometry is crucial for accurate measurements in complex matrices, where interfering ions can contribute to the measured potential through non-ideal responses described by the Nikolsky-Eisenman equation: Here, is the cell potential, is the standard potential, and are the activities of the primary ion i and interfering ion j, respectively, are selectivity coefficients quantifying the relative response to interferents, and is the Nernst factor (approximately 59 mV at 25°C). These coefficients, determined experimentally via methods like the separate solution technique, indicate the electrode's discrimination ability; for instance, a LaF₃ electrode has , meaning hydroxide interference is minimal at neutral pH. Interference effects become pronounced when interferent activities approach or exceed those of the analyte, necessitating ionic strength adjustment or masking agents to maintain accuracy. This equation, rooted in phase boundary potential theory, underpins the design of ion-selective electrodes for multianalyte environments.[24]Potentiometric Titrations
Potentiometric titrations involve the measurement of the potential difference between an indicator electrode and a reference electrode as a function of the volume of titrant added to an analyte solution, allowing for the determination of the equivalence point through changes in electrode potential. This method relies on the Nernstian response of the indicator electrode to the activity of species involved in the titration reaction. The technique was first introduced in the late 19th century, with Robert Behrend performing the initial potentiometric titration in 1893 at Ostwald's Institute in Leipzig, where he titrated mercurous nitrate with potassium halides using a mercury indicator electrode. Early applications focused on precipitation reactions, marking the beginning of instrumental endpoint detection in volumetric analysis. Endpoint identification in potentiometric titrations is achieved by analyzing the potential-volume curve, which typically exhibits a gradual change before and after the equivalence point, with a sharp inflection at the equivalence point for systems with suitable electrode responses. One widely used approach is the Gran plot method, developed by Gunnar Gran in the early 1950s, which transforms the nonlinear potential data into linear segments by plotting functions proportional to the analyte or titrant concentration against volume. For acid-base titrations, the Gran function before the equivalence point (e.g., 10^{pH} times volume) extrapolates to zero at the equivalence volume, providing precise determination even in dilute solutions where inflection points are shallow.[25] This method enhances accuracy by avoiding direct reliance on the inflection and is particularly effective for systems with conditional stability constants.[26] Alternative endpoint detection employs first- and second-derivative methods applied to the potential-volume data. The first derivative, calculated as the change in potential per unit volume (ΔE/ΔV), plotted against volume, reaches a maximum at the equivalence point, corresponding to the steepest slope of the titration curve. The second derivative, the change in the first derivative per unit volume (Δ(ΔE/ΔV)/ΔV), shows a sharp peak or sign change precisely at the equivalence point, offering higher sensitivity for detecting subtle inflections in weak systems. These derivative techniques are computationally straightforward and improve precision in automated titrations, though they require smooth data to minimize noise effects. Potentiometric titrations are classified by reaction type, each exhibiting characteristic potential changes at the equivalence point due to shifts in the predominant species sensed by the indicator electrode. In acid-base titrations, such as the neutralization of hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide using a glass pH electrode, the potential (pH) remains low in the acidic region and jumps abruptly to the basic region at the equivalence point, reflecting the rapid change from H⁺ dominance to OH⁻ dominance. This pH jump, often exceeding 6-8 units in strong acid-strong base systems, enables accurate endpoint detection without visual indicators.[27] Precipitation titrations, exemplified by the determination of chloride with silver nitrate using a silver indicator electrode, show a constant potential before the equivalence point governed by excess Ag⁺, followed by a sharp decrease after as sparingly soluble AgCl forms, reducing [Ag⁺] dramatically and shifting control to Cl⁻ activity. The potential change can span 100-200 mV or more, depending on solubility product. Redox titrations, such as the oxidation of ferrous ion with cerium(IV) using a platinum indicator electrode, exhibit a low potential before the equivalence point (controlled by Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺ couple) that rises steeply to a high value after, dominated by the Ce³⁺/Ce⁴⁺ couple, with jumps often around 400-600 mV due to differing standard potentials.[28] The primary advantages of potentiometric titrations include the objective determination of the endpoint without reliance on color-changing indicators, making them suitable for colored, turbid, or opaque solutions where visual methods fail. They also provide high precision and versatility across reaction types, with automation enabling reproducible results in routine analyses.[29] However, limitations arise from the slow response time of electrodes near the equivalence point, particularly in systems with gradual potential changes, which can prolong titration duration and introduce errors if not equilibrated properly. Additionally, the method requires stable temperature control and suitable electrodes responsive to the analyte, limiting applicability in highly irreversible systems.[30]Amperometric and Voltammetric Methods
Amperometry
Amperometry is an electroanalytical technique that involves applying a constant potential to a working electrode and measuring the resulting current, which is proportional to the concentration of an electroactive analyte diffusing to the electrode surface.[31] At sufficiently positive or negative potentials, the current becomes diffusion-limited, governed by the rate at which the analyte reaches the electrode. In steady-state conditions, such as those achieved with convection or thin-layer cells, the limiting current is described by , where is the number of electrons transferred, is the Faraday constant, is the electrode area, is the diffusion coefficient, is the analyte concentration, and is the diffusion layer thickness.[32] This steady-state current provides a direct measure of analyte concentration, making amperometry suitable for quantitative analysis in flowing systems or sensors. Capacitive currents may contribute to the background signal but are typically minimized at longer times.[33] A key variant is chronoamperometry, where a potential step is applied, and the transient current is monitored over time. The current decays as due to the expanding diffusion layer, following the Cottrell equation: .[34] Plotting versus yields a straight line (Cottrell plot), from which the diffusion coefficient can be determined using the slope .[35] This method is valuable for studying mass transport and reaction kinetics, particularly for reversible redox systems, and is often performed at microelectrodes to approach steady-state conditions more rapidly.[36] Amperometry finds widespread application in biosensors, such as those for glucose detection, where glucose oxidase catalyzes the oxidation of glucose, consuming oxygen that is subsequently reduced at the electrode to generate a measurable current.[37] In amperometric titrations, the current remains constant or decreases until the equivalence point, after which excess titrant causes a sharp increase or "jump" in current, enabling precise endpoint detection for reactions involving electroactive species like halides or metals.[38] These applications highlight amperometry's sensitivity and simplicity for real-time monitoring in clinical and environmental analysis. Despite its advantages, amperometry suffers from limitations including electrode fouling, where reaction products or adsorbates accumulate on the surface, degrading response over time.[39] Additionally, dissolved oxygen can interfere by undergoing reduction at similar potentials to the analyte, particularly in oxidase-based biosensors, necessitating deoxygenation or selective mediators.[40]Voltammetry
Voltammetry encompasses a suite of electroanalytical techniques where the potential applied to a working electrode is varied, typically in a linear or pulsed manner, to measure the resulting faradaic current as a function of potential, yielding characteristic current-potential (i-E) curves that provide insights into redox processes. These methods differ from constant-potential amperometry by actively scanning the potential to probe electrochemical kinetics and thermodynamics, often using inert electrodes such as platinum or glassy carbon. The resulting voltammograms exhibit sigmoidal or peaked shapes depending on the scan type and system reversibility, enabling qualitative identification of analytes and quantitative analysis through peak heights or areas. Linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) involves applying a linearly increasing or decreasing potential to the electrode at a constant scan rate, typically from 1 mV/s to 100 V/s, generating a peak-shaped i-E curve for reversible systems where the current rises to a maximum near the redox potential before decreasing due to the growing diffusion layer under diffusion-limited mass transport. For reversible electron transfers, the peak current in LSV is described by the Randles-Ševčík equation: where is the number of electrons transferred, is the electrode area (cm²), is the diffusion coefficient (cm²/s), is the scan rate (V/s), and is the bulk concentration (mol/cm³); this relation, derived independently by Randles and Ševčík, highlights the square-root dependence on scan rate, confirming diffusion control. The peak potential relates to the formal redox potential, aiding in thermodynamic characterization. Cyclic voltammetry (CV) extends LSV by reversing the potential scan direction after reaching a vertex, producing a characteristic "duck-shaped" voltammogram with anodic and cathodic peaks that reveal both reduction and oxidation processes in a single experiment. For reversible systems, the peak separation equals mV at 25°C, indicating Nernstian behavior and rapid electron transfer, while irreversible systems show larger (>70 mV) and peak broadening due to slow kinetics or coupled chemical reactions. This diagnostic criterion, established through theoretical analysis of single-scan and cyclic methods, distinguishes reversible, quasi-reversible, and irreversible electron transfers, with the formal potential estimated as the midpoint between peaks. Pulse voltammetric techniques enhance sensitivity by superimposing potential pulses on a linear ramp or staircase waveform, minimizing capacitive currents and sharpening peaks for trace analysis. Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) applies small amplitude pulses (typically 5-100 mV) to a ramp, measuring the difference in current before and after each pulse, resulting in well-defined peaks whose heights are proportional to concentration, with detection limits down to 10^{-8} M for many analytes. Square-wave voltammetry (SWV) uses symmetrical square-wave pulses forward and backward on a staircase, yielding net peak currents that reflect the difference between forward and reverse scans, offering even higher sensitivity (up to 10^{-9} M) and faster scan rates (up to 100 V/s) due to effective rejection of background currents. These variants produce asymmetric or symmetric peak shapes depending on the pulse amplitude and frequency, improving signal-to-noise ratios over LSV or CV for complex matrices.[41] Voltammetric methods are widely applied to determine formal redox potentials by identifying or peak midpoints, providing thermodynamic data for species like metal ions or organic redox couples, as seen in the characterization of ferrocene where is established at +0.40 V vs. SCE. They also elucidate reaction mechanisms through diagnostic peak ratios, scan rate dependencies, and follow-up scans; for instance, in CV, a decreasing anodic-to-cathodic peak current ratio with increasing scan rate signals an irreversible chemical step following electron transfer, such as in the oxidation of dopamine where coupled protonation alters the mechanism. These applications extend to studying electrode kinetics, adsorption effects, and multi-electron transfers in fields like battery research and sensor development.Polarography
Polarography is a classical electroanalytical technique that employs a dropping mercury electrode (DME) to measure diffusion-limited currents as a function of applied potential, enabling the qualitative and quantitative analysis of electroactive species at trace levels.[42] Developed by Jaroslav Heyrovský in 1922, the method involves electrolyzing a solution with a linearly increasing potential applied to the DME, which renews the electrode surface periodically through mercury drops, minimizing issues like adsorption and poisoning. In collaboration with Masuzo Shikata, Heyrovský constructed the first automated polarograph in 1924, a device that recorded current-potential curves photographically, revolutionizing electrochemical measurements.[43] This technique draws on voltammetric principles where the observed current arises primarily from the reduction or oxidation of analytes diffusing to the electrode surface./25%3A_Voltammetry/25.05%3A_Polarography) The characteristic output of polarography is the polarographic wave, a sigmoidal current-potential curve where the current rises from a residual baseline to a diffusion-limited plateau. The half-wave potential, , marks the point where the current is half the limiting value and provides insight into the analyte's standard reduction potential , often approximated as for reversible systems.[42] For reversible waves, the relationship is described by the logarithmic analysis: at 25°C, where is the diffusion current, is the measured current, is the number of electrons transferred, and the slope confirms reversibility. The diffusion current is quantified by the Ilkovič equation, derived by Dionýz Ilkovič in 1934: where is the diffusion coefficient (cm²/s), is the mass flow rate of mercury (mg/s), is the drop lifetime (s), and is the analyte concentration (mmol/L); this equation establishes the proportionality between and , forming the basis for quantitative analysis. Polarography excels in the detection of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, and zinc in environmental and biological samples, offering detection limits in the parts-per-million range due to the DME's high overpotential for hydrogen evolution and renewable surface.[44] For instance, it has been applied to quantify cadmium in dental materials at concentrations below 1 ppm, demonstrating its utility in trace-level assessments.[44] To address limitations like the non-faradaic capacitive current from the expanding mercury drop, modern variants such as pulse polarography apply potential pulses and sample the current near the end of each drop's life, where charging currents have decayed, thereby improving signal-to-noise ratios and lowering detection limits to sub-ppm levels.[45]Coulometric Methods
Controlled-Potential Coulometry
Controlled-potential coulometry is an electroanalytical technique that involves the exhaustive electrolysis of an analyte at a fixed electrode potential, where the total charge passed through the electrochemical cell is measured to determine the analyte's concentration. A potentiostat maintains the working electrode at a constant potential selected to selectively reduce or oxidize the target species without interfering with other solution components. As the electrolysis proceeds, the current decreases exponentially and approaches zero once the analyte is fully converted, allowing integration of the current-time curve to yield the total charge. This method ensures high selectivity due to the controlled potential, typically applied in unstirred or stirred solutions using electrodes such as platinum gauze or mercury pools.[46] The fundamental principle relies on Faraday's laws of electrolysis, which relate the quantity of substance transformed to the amount of electricity passed. The total charge is given by the equation where is the number of electrons transferred per mole of analyte, is Faraday's constant ( C/mol), and is the moles of analyte. In practice, is obtained by integrating the current over the electrolysis time : This integration can be performed electronically or computationally, providing a direct measure of the analyte quantity assuming 100% current efficiency, where all charge contributes to the desired faradaic process. For complete electrolysis, efficiencies exceeding 99% are achievable under optimized conditions, such as sufficient stirring and appropriate potential selection.[46][47] A calibration involves constructing a working curve of versus analyte concentration, which exhibits a linear relationship due to the stoichiometric proportionality in Faraday's law. This allows quantification without external standards in many cases, as the method is absolute. Applications include the determination of redox-active species, such as the reduction of Cu²⁺ to Cu⁰ using a mercury pool working electrode, where a suitable reducing potential around -0.25 V vs. SCE ensures selective deposition.[48] Other examples encompass the oxidation of As(III) to As(V) on platinum electrodes and analysis of trace metals like uranium or plutonium in nuclear materials, achieving precisions typically on the order of 0.1-2% depending on the system.[46][49] The primary advantages of controlled-potential coulometry are its status as an absolute method requiring no calibration curves for known stoichiometries and its high accuracy and selectivity for electroactive analytes. It is particularly valuable for purity assessments and mechanistic studies of electrochemical reactions. However, limitations include extended analysis times—often 30-60 minutes—for dilute solutions (e.g., <1 mM), where diffusion-limited currents decay slowly, and the need for corrections for background currents or incomplete efficiencies in complex matrices. Skilled operation is essential to maintain potential control and minimize interferences from secondary reactions.[46][47][49]Constant-Current Coulometry
Constant-current coulometry, also known as amperostatic coulometry, involves applying a fixed electrical current through an electrochemical cell to generate a titrant quantitatively at an electrode, with the electrolysis time measured to determine the charge passed. The fundamental principle relies on Faraday's law of electrolysis, which relates the charge to the amount of substance produced or consumed: , where is the number of electrons transferred per mole of analyte, is Faraday's constant (approximately 96,485 C/mol), and is the number of moles of analyte. Since the current is constant, the charge is simply , allowing precise calculation of the titrant equivalents from the product of current and electrolysis time until the endpoint is reached. In coulometric titrations, this technique enables the in situ electrogeneration of reagents, eliminating the need for pre-prepared titrant solutions and ensuring high accuracy due to the direct proportionality between charge and titrant amount. A common example is the generation of bromine from bromide ions at a platinum anode for the determination of arsenite, where As(III) is oxidized to As(V) by the electroproduced Br₂ in an acidic medium, with reactions proceeding stoichiometrically: and . This method achieves errors of less than 0.3% for microgram quantities of arsenic. Other titrants, such as iodine from iodide or cerium(IV) from cerium(III), can be generated similarly for redox titrations of analytes like antimony or uranium.[50] Endpoint detection in constant-current coulometry typically employs a secondary indicator electrode system, often amperometric or potentiometric, to monitor the sudden change in solution composition at equivalence. In amperometric detection, a twin-electrode setup applies a fixed potential to sense the excess titrant's diffusion current after the endpoint, producing a characteristic V-shaped titration curve. Potentiometric methods, using a reference and indicator electrode pair, track potential shifts due to titrant accumulation, suitable for systems with well-defined redox potentials. These detection modes ensure sharp endpoints without direct measurement of the generated species during titration.[51] The development of constant-current coulometry is closely associated with the work of James J. Lingane in the 1950s, who pioneered its application in analytical chemistry through numerous studies on electrogenerated titrants for precise determinations. A notable application is the coulometric Karl Fischer titration for trace moisture analysis, where iodine is generated at constant current to react with water in a methanol-pyridine medium via , enabling detection limits down to parts per million; commercial instruments based on this became available in the 1970s. This technique has found widespread use in water quality assessment and pharmaceutical analysis due to its automation potential and reagent stability. Recent advancements as of the 2020s include integration with automated flow systems for high-throughput environmental and industrial monitoring.[52][53][4]Conductometric Methods
Direct Conductometry
Direct conductometry is an electroanalytical technique that measures the electrical conductance of a solution to directly assess the total ionic concentration or strength, providing insights into the overall electrolyte content without relying on redox reactions or potential differences. The conductance of the solution is defined as , where is the measured electrical resistance, and it is related to the geometry of the measuring cell by , with denoting the specific conductance, the effective electrode area, and the distance between electrodes.[54][55] The specific conductance quantifies the solution's ability to conduct electricity and is given by , where is the molar ionic conductivity of each ion species and its concentration.[54][55] For strong electrolytes, the molar conductivity (defined as , with as the total molar concentration) follows Kohlrausch's law, which states that , where is the limiting molar conductivity at infinite dilution and is an empirical constant accounting for interionic interactions.[54] This relationship arises from the independent migration of ions at low concentrations and allows direct conductometry to estimate parameters such as total ionic strength or salinity in aqueous solutions, as higher ion concentrations linearly correlate with increased conductance up to moderate levels.[54][56] For instance, in environmental monitoring, conductance measurements calibrated against known standards enable rapid assessment of seawater salinity, where values around 50 mS/cm correspond to typical ocean ionic strengths.[56] To perform accurate measurements, alternating current (AC) is preferred over direct current (DC) because AC at frequencies typically between 1 and 100 kHz reduces electrode polarization, where ions accumulate at the electrode surface and distort the electric field.[54][55] The cell constant is determined by calibration with standard potassium chloride (KCl) solutions of known concentrations (e.g., 0.01, 0.1, or 1 mol kg⁻¹), whose conductance values are standardized by organizations like IUPAC.[55] Electrochemical cells for these measurements generally feature two platinum electrodes coated with platinum black to increase the effective surface area and minimize polarization effects.[54] Despite its simplicity and broad applicability, direct conductometry is limited by its sensitivity to temperature, with conductance typically increasing by approximately 2% per degree Celsius due to enhanced ion mobility, necessitating precise temperature control (e.g., within 0.01 °C) during measurements.[55][56] Additionally, the method is inherently non-specific, as it responds to the collective contribution of all ions present and cannot differentiate between individual species or their charge types, making it unsuitable for selective ion analysis.[56] These constraints are particularly evident in complex matrices with varying ion mobilities or at high concentrations, where deviations from Kohlrausch's law occur due to ion pairing and electrostatic interactions.[54]Conductometric Titrations
Conductometric titrations determine the equivalence point of a reaction by monitoring changes in the electrical conductivity of the solution as titrant is added. The conductivity reflects the total ionic concentration and mobility, which vary as ions are replaced during the reaction. An alternating current (AC) of high frequency, typically in the kHz range, is employed to measure conductance without inducing electrode polarization or Faradaic reactions at the electrodes.[57] This method was introduced in the late 19th century, with early work by Friedrich Kohlrausch and Wilhelm Ostwald, and significant contributions from researchers like P. Dutoit, who applied it to sulfate determinations around 1910.[58][59] In titrations involving a strong acid and strong base, such as HCl with NaOH, the initial high conductivity decreases as H⁺ ions (high mobility) are replaced by Na⁺, forming water and NaCl, reaching a minimum at the equivalence point. Beyond this point, excess OH⁻ ions cause conductivity to increase sharply, producing a characteristic V-shaped curve. For weak acid-strong base titrations, like acetic acid with NaOH, the curve shows an initial decrease in conductivity due to partial ionization of the weak acid, followed by a minimum near equivalence where acetate ions predominate, and then a rise from excess OH⁻; the minimum is less pronounced due to hydrolysis effects. These curves allow endpoint identification at the inflection or minimum point.[60] Precipitation titrations, such as Ag⁺ with Cl⁻ to form AgCl, exhibit stepwise conductance changes: initial high conductivity from Ag⁺ drops as low-mobility Cl⁻ replaces it, with a sharp break at equivalence when excess Cl⁻ further decreases conductivity due to the sparingly soluble precipitate removing ions from solution. Complexometric titrations, exemplified by EDTA with Ca²⁺, follow similar patterns, where the stable metal-EDTA complex reduces free ion concentration, leading to a conductance minimum at equivalence; the method is effective for divalent cations in ammoniacal buffers.[60] For enhanced precision, especially in curves with shallow inflections, first-derivative plots of conductance change versus titrant volume are used, where the endpoint corresponds to the maximum or minimum in the derivative curve. This approach improves accuracy over direct curve inspection. Advantages over visual indicator methods include applicability to very dilute solutions (down to 10⁻⁴ M), colored or turbid samples, and reactions lacking suitable indicators, achieving precisions better than 1% without needing initial conductance values from direct conductometry.[61][60]Advanced Electroanalytical Techniques
Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a powerful electroanalytical technique that characterizes electrochemical interfaces by applying a small-amplitude sinusoidal potential perturbation over a wide frequency range, typically from millihertz to megahertz, and measuring the resulting current response. This frequency-domain method provides insights into reaction kinetics, mass transport, and capacitive processes that are not easily accessible through steady-state techniques, as it separates contributions based on their characteristic time constants. Unlike time-domain methods such as voltammetry, EIS yields non-steady-state data that reveal dynamic interfacial behaviors.[62] The impedance in EIS is a complex quantity defined as , where is the real part representing resistive components, is the imaginary part representing reactive components, is the imaginary unit, and is the angular frequency with as the frequency in hertz. Data are commonly visualized in Nyquist plots, which graph versus to display semicircles indicative of charge transfer and capacitive elements, or Bode plots, which plot the logarithm of the impedance magnitude and phase angle versus to explicitly show frequency dependence and resolve overlapping processes. These representations facilitate the identification of time constants associated with interfacial phenomena.[62][63] A foundational model for interpreting EIS data is the Randles equivalent circuit, consisting of the solution resistance in series with a parallel combination of the charge-transfer resistance and a constant phase element (CPE), followed by the Warburg impedance to account for diffusion. This circuit captures the essential elements of faradaic processes: for ohmic drop, for electron transfer kinetics, the CPE for non-ideal capacitance due to surface heterogeneity, and for semi-infinite linear diffusion, expressed as where is the Warburg coefficient. In Nyquist plots, the high-frequency intercept gives , the semicircle diameter reflects , and the low-frequency 45° line arises from . The CPE, with impedance where (0 < n < 1) quantifies deviation from ideality (e.g., due to rough electrodes), replaces ideal capacitors to better fit real data.[62][62][62] Equivalent circuit fitting involves nonlinear least-squares regression to match experimental data to proposed models, often using software like ZView, with validation via Kramers-Kronig transforms to ensure causality and stability; goodness-of-fit is assessed by the chi-squared value . The Warburg element models diffusion-limited processes, appearing as a diffusive tail, while the CPE accounts for distributed relaxation times on inhomogeneous surfaces, improving accuracy over ideal components. EIS rose prominently in the 1980s with the advent of frequency response analyzers, such as the Solartron 1172, enabling measurements down to 0.1 mHz and computational fitting that addressed limitations of earlier bridge methods restricted to higher frequencies, thus filling gaps in probing slow interfacial kinetics left by steady-state techniques.[62][62][64] Applications of EIS span diverse fields, including corrosion studies where it quantifies pitting and passivation on metals like iron in acidic media by analyzing inductive loops from adsorbed species. In battery electrode kinetics, EIS dissects solid-electrolyte interphase resistance and diffusion in lithium-ion cells, revealing performance degradation mechanisms through frequency-resolved semicircles. For biosensor interface analysis, EIS monitors biorecognition events, such as antigen-antibody binding, by tracking changes in with redox probes in Randles models, enabling label-free detection in systems like impedimetric immunosensors for pathogens. These uses highlight EIS's role in providing quantitative, mechanistic insights into interfacial dynamics.[62][62][62]Anodic Stripping Voltammetry
Anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) is an ultrasensitive electroanalytical technique primarily used for the detection of trace metal ions, relying on a two-step process that enhances sensitivity through electrochemical preconcentration. In the first step, known as cathodic deposition or preconcentration, metal ions in the analyte solution are reduced and accumulated onto the surface of a working electrode at a constant negative potential () for a fixed duration (), typically ranging from 1 to 30 minutes, often with stirring to promote mass transport. This deposition forms an amalgam or deposit proportional to the analyte concentration, governed by principles derived from Fick's laws of diffusion. The second step involves anodic stripping, where the potential is scanned positively (e.g., using linear sweep or pulse voltammetry), oxidizing the deposited metal and producing a characteristic current peak () whose height is directly proportional to the deposition time and the original metal ion concentration (). This preconcentration step can amplify detection sensitivity by up to 10,000-fold compared to non-accumulation methods, enabling quantification at sub-ppb levels.[65][66][67] Commonly employed electrodes include the hanging mercury drop electrode (HMDE), which provides a renewable, smooth surface ideal for amalgam formation with metals like copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc, though its use has declined due to mercury toxicity concerns. Alternatives such as thin-film electrodes, including mercury film electrodes (MFEs) or solid-state options like bismuth, tin, or gold films deposited on glassy carbon substrates, offer similar performance without mercury, extending applicability to non-amalgam-forming elements like arsenic or silver. A widely adopted variant is differential pulse anodic stripping voltammetry (DPASV), which applies a series of potential pulses during the stripping phase to minimize capacitive currents and improve signal resolution, achieving detection limits in the ppb range (e.g., 1-10 ppb for lead and cadmium) with high selectivity in complex matrices. These electrode configurations, combined with controlled deposition parameters, allow for simultaneous multi-element analysis while maintaining low limits of detection, such as 8 × 10^{-11} mol L^{-1} for thallium with a deposition time of 180 s.[65][67][66][68] ASV finds extensive applications in environmental monitoring, particularly for detecting toxic heavy metals such as lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) in natural waters, sediments, and wastewater at concentrations relevant to regulatory limits (e.g., <10 ppb for Pb in drinking water). It addresses modern trace analysis needs by enabling field-portable instrumentation for real-time assessment of pollution sources, such as industrial effluents or atmospheric deposition, and has been integrated into hyphenated systems like ASV-ICP-MS for enhanced speciation. Interference from co-existing ions or organic matter, which can adsorb on the electrode or alter deposition efficiency, is mitigated through techniques like medium exchange—replacing the sample solution with a clean electrolyte (e.g., acetate buffer) post-deposition to remove matrix effects—or by adding chelating agents to selectively complex interfering species. ASV's development accelerated in the 1970s with contributions from researchers like J. F. van der Pol and others, building on earlier polarographic foundations to establish it as a standard for ultrasensitive trace metal detection.[65][69][70][66]References
- https://Analytical_Sciences_Digital_Library/Courseware/Analytical_Electrochemistry:_The_Basic_Concepts/05_Experimental_Hardware/A._Electrochemical_Cells
- https://Analytical_Sciences_Digital_Library/Courseware/Analytical_Electrochemistry:_The_Basic_Concepts/05_Experimental_Hardware/C._Working_Electrodes
- https://Analytical_Sciences_Digital_Library/Courseware/Analytical_Electrochemistry:_Potentiometry/03_Potentiometric_Theory/04_Reference_Electrodes