27 No. 3
|Up for Discussion
||A forum for members and member organizations to share ideas and concerns.
Send your comments by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
As a follow-up to Vladimir Simeon's question about
replacing the term "electromotive force," published
in the November-December 2004 CI, p.18, Christopher
Brett, vice president of the Physical and Biophysical Chemistry
Division, informed CI that the issue has been a concern
of the former Commission on Electrochemistry since the publication
of the 2nd edition of the "Green Book"*
in 1993. As Simeon rightly pointed out, the name is inconsistent
with its meaning and the word "force " is misleading,
since potential differences are not forces.
in 1997,an extensive revision of the Electrochemistry section
of the "Green Book " was carried out by the Commission
on Electrochemistry. The revisions include the removal of
"electromotive force" and "emf." In referring
to an electrochemical cell, only the terms "cell potential"
or "potential difference of an electrochemical cell"
3rd edition of the "Green Book " in which the revised
section on Electrochemistry will appear, is highly anticipated.
The Green Book will clarify this and other issues and be an
important aid and source of recommended terminology and symbols,
both for electrochemists and for the wider chemical community.
*I. Mills, et al, IUPAC
Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, 2nd
ed., Blackwell, Oxford 1993.
last modified 21 April 2005.
Copyright © 2003-2005 International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
Questions regarding the website, please contact email@example.com