1.10 Surface Stress versus Potential Curve of Solid Metal Electrode
29
Hg
Solvated cation
Unsolvated anion
Water molecule
IHP
OHP
Diffuse-charge layer
Fig. 1.7 Solvent adsorption model at the negatively charged mercury electrode [29]. In Fig. 1.7,
the diffuse-charge layer is added to the model proposed by Bockris et al. [31]. Reprinted from [29],
Copyright 1970, with permission from Plenum Press, New York
measured by several methods such as cantilever bending and piezoelectric detection
(see Chap. 2). Figure 1.10 shows the surface stress versus potential ((g vs. E) curve
measured by a cantilever bending method at a potential scan rate of 5 mV s
−1 in the
potential region between −0.24 and 0.80 V (SHE) for an unreconstructed, (111)textured Au (111) thin-film electrode in pH 3.0, 0.5 M NaClO 4 solution [33]. The
surface stress versus potential ((g vs. E) curve as well as the surface tension versus
29
Hg
Solvated cation
Unsolvated anion
Water molecule
IHP
OHP
Diffuse-charge layer
Fig. 1.7 Solvent adsorption model at the negatively charged mercury electrode [29]. In Fig. 1.7,
the diffuse-charge layer is added to the model proposed by Bockris et al. [31]. Reprinted from [29],
Copyright 1970, with permission from Plenum Press, New York
measured by several methods such as cantilever bending and piezoelectric detection
(see Chap. 2). Figure 1.10 shows the surface stress versus potential ((g vs. E) curve
measured by a cantilever bending method at a potential scan rate of 5 mV s
−1 in the
potential region between −0.24 and 0.80 V (SHE) for an unreconstructed, (111)textured Au (111) thin-film electrode in pH 3.0, 0.5 M NaClO 4 solution [33]. The
surface stress versus potential ((g vs. E) curve as well as the surface tension versus