Junction Potentials Bias Measurements of Ion Exchange Membrane

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS

Energy and the Environment

Junction potentials bias measurements of ion exchange membrane permselectivity Ryan Scott Kingsbury, Sophie Flotron, Shan Zhu, Douglas Call, and Orlando Coronell Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 15 Mar 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 15, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Environmental Science & Technology

Junction potentials bias measurements of ion exchange membrane permselectivity Ryan S. Kingsbury,a Sophie Flotron,a Shan Zhu,a Douglas F. Call,b Orlando Coronella,* a

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA b Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA *Corresponding author [tel: 1-919-966-9010; fax: +1-919-966-7911; e-mail: [email protected]]

12

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


13

Abstract

14

Ion exchange membranes (IEMs) are versatile materials relevant to a variety of water and waste

15

treatment, energy production, and industrial separation processes. The defining characteristic of

16

IEMs is their ability to selectively allow positive or negative ions to permeate, which is referred

17

to as the permselectivity. Measured values of permselectivity that equal unity (corresponding to a

18

perfectly-selective membrane) or exceed unity (theoretically impossible) have been reported for

19

cation exchange membranes (CEMs). Such non-physical results call into question our ability to

20

correctly measure this crucial membrane property. Since weighing errors, temperature, and

21

measurement uncertainty have been shown to not explain these anomalous permselectivity

22

results, we hypothesized that a possible explanation are junction potentials that occur at the tips

23

of reference electrodes. In this work, we tested this hypothesis by comparing permselectivity

24

values obtained from bare Ag/AgCl wire electrodes (which have no junction) to values obtained

25

from single-junction reference electrodes containing two different electrolytes. We show that

26

permselectivity values obtained using reference electrodes with junctions were greater than unity

27

for CEMs. By contrast, electrodes without junctions always produced permselectivities lower

28

than unity. Electrodes with junctions also resulted in artificially low permselectivity values for

29

AEMs compared to electrodes without junctions. Thus, we conclude that junctions in reference

30

electrodes introduce two biases into results in the IEM literature: (i) permselectivity values larger

31

than unity for CEMs, and (ii) lower permselectivity values for AEMs compared to those for

32

CEMs. These biases can be avoided by using electrodes without a junction.

33 34

Keywords: permselectivity; junction potential; membrane potential; ion exchange membrane; reference electrode; electrochemistry


Page 2 of 27

Page 3 of 27


35

Introduction

36

Ion exchange membranes (IEMs) are versatile materials used in desalination, waste treatment,

37

energy production, and industrial separation.1–8 The IEM-based technologies used in these

38

processes help mitigate human impacts to the environment in several ways. For example,

39

diffusion dialysis (DD) enables recovery of acids and bases from industrial wastewaters,9

40

electrodialysis (ED) can be used to produce drinking water from brackish groundwater with low

41

energy input and high water recovery,9–11 and reverse electrodialysis (RED) is an emerging

42

technology for clean energy production and storage9,12 that could satisfy the energy demand of

43

many coastal communities.13 As such, understanding IEM performance is essential for the

44

continued development of many technologies relevant to environmental protection.

45

The defining characteristic of IEMs is their permselectivity, which refers to their ability to

46

selectively allow ions of opposite charge to the membrane (counter-ions) to permeate.4

47

Permselectivity ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect selectivity for counter-ions.

48

Measured values of permselectivity that equal or slightly exceed unity (e.g., permselectivity =

49

1.00-1.04) have been reported for cation exchange membranes (CEMs) by several research

50

groups (see Table S1).14–16 These results do not make physical sense, and call into question our

51

ability to correctly measure this crucial membrane property. Moreover, the fact that CEM

52

permselectivity measurements appear biased suggests that measurements of anion exchange

53

membrane (AEM) permselectivity may also be inaccurate.

54

Ji et al.16 determined that weighing errors, temperature, or measurement uncertainty in the

55

membrane potential cannot explain these non-physical values of permselectivity. Having ruled

56

out these factors, we hypothesize that a possible explanation for the artificially-high values of



Page 4 of 27

57

permselectivity for CEMs are junction potentials arising at the tips of reference electrodes used

58

to measure membrane potential. Junction potentials occur due to differences in ion mobility and,

59

in some cases, ionic selectivity of the separator (e.g., the tip of a reference electrode)17–19

60

wherever there is an interface between two electrolyte solutions of different concentration (e.g.,

61

the electrode filling solution and the bulk electrolyte).

62

Accordingly, towards determining how to correctly measure membrane permselectivity, our

63

objective was to determine whether junction potentials affect permselectivity measurements of

64

CEMs and AEMs. We tested our hypothesis by comparing permselectivity values obtained using

65

bare Ag/AgCl wire electrodes (which have no junction) with values obtained from single-

66

junction reference electrodes filled with either NaCl or KCl solutions. We show that measuring

67

permselectivity using reference electrodes with junctions produces values of permselectivity

68

greater than unity for CEMs, and values that are artificially low for AEMs. These biases can be

69

avoided by using electrodes without a junction.

70

Theoretical Background

71

The apparent membrane permselectivity (, dimensionless) is given by4,20

,

72

=

73

where (V) is the potential across the IEM, , (V) is the potential of an ideally-

74

selective membrane, and (dimensionless) are the solution-phase transport numbers of co-

75

ions and counter-ions, respectively, and the term “apparent” signifies that the permselectivity

76

calculated in this way does not include the effects of water transport by osmosis and electro-

77

osmosis.4 , is given by the Nernst equation21,22

,

(1)


Page 5 of 27


ln %.' "

78

Δ, = !

79

where ) is the charge on the counter-ion, * is the activity of the salt (NaCl in this case) in the

80

respective solutions, and subscripts indicate the NaCl concentration in the respective solutions.

81

is typically measured using two reference electrodes placed on opposite sides of a

82

membrane separating 0.5 M and 0.1 M NaCl solutions.15,16,20,21,23,24 Most measurements employ

83

single- or double-junction Ag/AgCl reference electrodes containing a filling solution separated

84

from the bulk salt solution by a porous frit.14–16,20,24 This measurement apparatus is represented

85

by the shorthand electrochemical cell notation given in Figure 1. Under these measurement

86

conditions, , is ‒37.8 mV for a CEM (see Supporting Information), where is

87

defined as the potential of the concentrated side of the cell with respect to the dilute side.

88

Therefore, a measurement error of just ±0.4 mV in would cause 1% error in the

89

permselectivity calculation.

%.(

,

(2)

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Figure 1. Shorthand electrochemical notation for the cell commonly used to measure apparent membrane permselectivity. In the figure, “/” indicates a phase boundary while “,” indicates a boundary between components in the same phase, after Bard & Faulkner.17 The cell reflects the use of single-junction Ag/AgCl reference electrodes. Subscripts “C” and “D” refer to the sides of the membrane containing the more concentrated and dilute salt solutions, respectively.



Page 6 of 27

98

As shown in Figure 1, the measured potential (+,- ) comprises several additional potentials

99

in addition to the membrane potential . First, there may be a difference in the potential of

100

the two reference electrodes due to differences in the respective filling solution concentrations.

101

This “offset potential” (Δ-. , V) can be expressed as

102

Δ-. = -.,/ -.,0 ,

103

where -. refers to the potential between the Ag/AgCl wire of the electrode and the

104

corresponding filling solution, and the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the electrodes immersed in the

105

more concentrated and dilute electrolyte solutions, respectively. Δ-. can be measured directly

106

by recording the potential difference between both electrodes placed in the same salt solution,

107

and is zero for ideal reference electrodes.

108

Second, when using single- or double-junction reference electrodes, there will be a potential due

109

to the junction formed between the filling solution and the bulk solution in the cell, provided that

110

their concentrations are different. In general, this junction potential consists of two components:

111

1) the liquid junction potential arising from differences in ion mobility17,18,25 (see Figure 2a) and

112

2) a “tip potential” caused by the ionic selectivity of negatively-charged porous glass frits.19

113

Because the bulk salt concentrations on either side of the membrane are different, the junction

114

potentials on the two sides will also be different. Thus, we define the difference in junction

115

potential between the two sides (Δ3 , V) as

116

Δ3 = 3,/ 3,0 ,

117

where 3,/ and 3,0 are the junction potentials of the electrodes immersed in the concentrated and

118

dilute electrolyte solutions, respectively (here 0.5 M and 0.1 M NaCl). We cannot calculate Δ3 a

(3)

(4)


Page 7 of 27


119

priori because there is no way to quantitatively estimate the difference in tip potentials.

120

However, Mousavi et al.19 showed that the tip potential is reduced at higher ionic strengths (>0.1

121

M) due to charge screening. Considering that the ionic strengths of the solutions typically used

122

for permselectivity measurement (0.5 M and 0.1 M NaCl) are relatively high, we will estimate

123

Δ3 based only on the liquid junction potential, recognizing that this calculated value will

124

represent a lower bound of the true junction potential. Accordingly, 3 is approximated as the

125

liquid junction potential, which is given by17

126

3 =

127

where 7 (8.314 J.mol-1.K-1) is the ideal gas constant, 8 (K) is the temperature, 9 (96,485 C.mol-

128

1

129

summation is performed over all ions (:) in solution, and the limits of integration represent the

130

two liquid phases (fill and bulk solutions). In this study, we define phase 1 as the external

131

solution and phase 2 as the electrode filling solution. By assuming linear activity gradients

132

through the junction, Equation (5) can be solved analytically to give an activity-corrected form

133

of the well-known Henderson equation.26

"

∑ 5

!

6 ln *

,

(5)

) is the Faraday constant, ) (dimensionless) is ion charge, * (dimensionless) is ion activity, the

;< ;= ∑ [ ?@AB ? @]

Junction Potentials Bias Measurements of Ion Exchange Membrane

Recommend Documents