1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'

2: % SP 2001/01/05

3: 

4: \documentclass{elsart}

5: 

6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing

7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}

8: 

9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article

10: % use the graphics package for simple commands

11: % \usepackage{graphics}

12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands

13: \usepackage{graphicx}

14: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands

15: % \usepackage{epsfig}

16: 

17: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

18: \usepackage{amssymb}

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \begin{frontmatter}

23: 

24: % Title, authors and addresses

25: 

26: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;

27: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;

28: % use the ead command for the email address,

29: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:

30: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}

31: % \thanks[label1]{}

32: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}

33: % \ead{email address}

34: % \ead[url]{home page}

35: % \thanks[label2]{}

36: % \corauth[cor1]{}

37: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}

38: % \thanks[label3]{}

39: 

40: \title{Reply to ``Remarks on the simulation of Cl electrosorption

41: on Ag(100) reported in Electrochimica Acta 50 (2005) 5518"}

42: 

43: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:

44: % \author[label1,label2]{}

45: % \address[label1]{}

46: % \address[label2]{}

47: 

48: \author[a,b,c]{P.~A.\ Rikvold\corauthref{cor1}}

49: \ead{rikvold@scs.fsu.edu}

50: \author[d]{Th.~Wandlowski}

51: \author[a,b]{I.\ Abou Hamad\thanksref{label1}}

52: \author[e]{S.~J.\ Mitchell}

53: \author[a,b,f]{G.~Brown}

54: \address[a]{Center for Materials Research and Technology and 

55: Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

56: 32306-4350, USA}

57: \address[b]{School of Computational Science, Florida State

58: University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4120, USA}

59: \address[c]{National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Tallahassee,

60: FL 32310, USA}

61: \address[d]{Department of Bio- and Nanosystems IBN 3, and

62: Centre of Nanoelectronic Systems, CNI, Research Centre J{\"u}lich,

63: 52425 J{\"u}lich, Germany}

64: \address[e]{Center for Simulational Physics and Department of

65: Physics and Astronomy, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

66: 30602-2451, USA}

67: \address[f]{Center for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National

68: Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA}

69: \corauth[cor1]{Corresponding author. 

70: Tel.: +1 850 644 6011; fax: 1 850 644 0098}

71: \thanks[label1]{Current address: Department of Physics and Astronomy,

72: Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA}

73: 

74: \begin{abstract}

75: % Text of abstract

76: We reply to the remarks by L{\'a}ng and Hor{\'a}nyi [Electrochim.\

77: Acta Vol. (2006) page] on the meaning of the notion of

78: ``electrosorption valency" used in I.\ Abou Hamad {\it et al.\/}, 

79: Electrochim.\ Acta 50 (2005) 5518. 

80: It is concluded that, contrary to the assertion of L{\'a}ng and

81: Hor{\'a}nyi, the magnitude of the 

82: current in the external circuit upon adsorption of

83: an ion of charge $ze$ with partial charge transfer is indeed given

84: by an electrosorption valency $\gamma$ such that

85: $| \gamma e| < |ze|$. We believe the conclusion of 

86: L{\'a}ng and Hor{\'a}nyi to the contrary is the result of an

87: excessively severe charge-neutrality requirement. 

88: \end{abstract}

89: 

90: \begin{keyword}

91: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

92: Electrosorption \sep Electrosorption valency \sep Formal partial

93: charge number \sep Lateral interactions \sep Surface dipole 

94: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

95: %\PACS 

96: \end{keyword}

97: \end{frontmatter}

98: 

99: % main text

100: \section{Introduction}

101: \label{sec:int}

102: 

103: In their interesting discussion article \cite{LANG06B}, L{\'a}ng and

104: Hor{\'a}nyi (LH) question the concept of {\it

105: electrosorption valency\/} \cite{VETT72A,VETT72B} as interpreted 

106: in our recent paper on Cl electrosorption on Ag(100) \cite{HAMA05B}. 

107: As we understand their argument, its

108: central point is the requirement of charge neutrality in the

109: solution phase and {\it separately\/} in a surface layer consisting

110: of the specifically adsorbed ions (traditionally known as the 

111: Inner Helmholtz Layer, IHL) and the 

112: adjoining part of the metal in the working electrode. These two

113: separate conditions, when applied simultaneously, lead them to the

114: conclusion that the charge transported through the external

115: circuit due to the specific adsorption of an ion of charge $ze$

116: must be $ze$, regardless of possible partial discharge of the

117: adsorbate, unless coadsorption of ions of opposite charge takes place. 

118: 

119: We argue that this double application of the charge-neutrality

120: requirement overconstrains the problem and leads to an erroneous

121: conclusion. The correct region over which charge neutrality should

122: be applied must include the parts of the solution phase close to

123: the IHL, traditionally known as the Outer Helmholtz layer (OHL) and

124: the diffuse double layer (DDL). See Fig.~\ref{fig:one} for 

125: definitions of these terms. 

126: This polarized region, representing the

127: half-cell of the working electrode, is separated from the rest of

128: the system by fictitious bounding surfaces inside the uniform,

129: macroscopically uncharged bulk media (electrolyte and metal,

130: respectively). This schematic partitioning of the system

131: removes the need to consider the counter electrode 

132: explicitly in calculating the charge transport. 

133: A completely analogous condition of charge neutrality is 

134: independently obeyed at the counter electrode.

135: The current through the working electrode into the external circuit

136: induces a current of opposite sign, but with the same magnitude, through the

137: counter electrode. For instance, if chloride adsorbs at the working

138: electrode, a (partial) negative charge will be released into the

139: external circuit, while a corresponding negative charge will, on

140: average, be injected

141: through the counter electrode. In the present case, this latter charge

142: will most probably transform a corresponding amount of

143: H$^+$ into $\half$H$_2$, thus maintaining  

144: electroneutrality in the entire system. 

145: 

146: Our conclusion, for which we argue below, is that the expressions

147: for electrosorption valency and adsorbate dipole moment used in

148: Ref.~\cite{HAMA05B} correspond to the approximations of excess

149: supporting electrolyte, as well as to 

150: identifying the electrosorption valency with the negative of the

151: partial charge-transfer coefficient. While not exact, these are 

152: reasonable approximations, supported {\it a posteriori\/}

153: by the good agreement between the numerical results for our model system

154: and the experimental adsorption isotherms.  

155: In the process we reconfirm Vetter and Schultze's relation between

156: the electrosorption valency and the current in the external circuit

157: \cite{VETT72B}. 

158: 

159: Details of our arguments, including the approximations used in

160: Ref.~\cite{HAMA05B} (and also in Ref.~\cite{HAMA03}), are given 

161: below. In Sec.~\ref{sec:ESV} we discuss the definition 

162: of the electrosorption valency; in Sec.~\ref{sec:Q} we discuss its 

163: relation to the current in the external circuit; and in Sec.~\ref{sec:P} 

164: we obtain its relation to the surface dipole moment. 

165: Our conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:C}. 

166: 

167: \section{Electrosorption Valency}

168: \label{sec:ESV}

169: 

170: The electrosorption valency 

171: was thermodynamically formalized by Vetter and Schultze 

172: \cite{VETT72A,VETT72B} to account for the current in the

173: external circuit during electrosorption with partial

174: charge transfer \cite{LORE61}. 

175: Abbreviated derivations have been presented later

176: (see, e.g., Ch.\ 18 of Ref.~\cite{SCHM96}), but we believe the most

177: detailed treatment is given in Refs.~\cite{VETT72A,VETT72B}, as

178: supplemented by Refs.~\cite{SCHU73,VETT74,SCHU76B}. 

179: Results of these early papers were recently summarized by

180: Schultze and Rolle \cite{SCHU97,SCHU03}. 

181: 

182: Vetter and Schultze consider an electrosorption reaction for an ion

183: of valence $z$ with the possible charge transfer of a noninteger 

184: number $\lambda$ of electrons, described by the equation

185: \cite{VETT72A,VETT72B,SCHU73,VETT74,SCHU76B} 

186: \begin{equation}

187: \nu \mathrm{M}\!-\!\mathrm{OH}_2 + \mathrm{S}^z \! \cdot \! \mathrm{aq} 

188: \rightleftharpoons

189: \mathrm{M}\!-\!\mathrm{S}^{z+\lambda} + \lambda e^-(\mathrm{met}) + 

190: \nu \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}\! \cdot \! \mathrm{aq} 

191: \;.

192: \label{eq:ads}

193: \end{equation}

194: To avoid extrathermodynamic complications arising from considering

195: the microscopic structure of the DDL \cite{FRUM74}, 

196: we here restrict ourselves to the case of

197: excess supporting electrolyte, so that the potential at the OHL, 

198: $\phi_\mathrm{OHL}$, is the same as that in the bulk electrolyte, 

199: $\phi_\mathrm{e}$, 

200: \cite{VETT72A,VETT72B,VETT74}, which we can define equal to zero

201: without loss of generality. See Fig.~\ref{fig:one}. 

202: This is indeed the condition corresponding to the experiments reported

203: in Refs.~\cite{HAMA05B,HAMA03}. The electrode potential is then  

204: $E = \phi_\mathrm{met} + \mathrm{cst.}$, where $\phi_\mathrm{met}$

205: is the potential of the metal. Thus, in the case of excess

206: supporting electrolyte, differentiation

207: with respect to $E$ is the same as with respect to 

208: $(\phi_\mathrm{met} - \phi_\mathrm{OHL})$. 

209: The excess of supporting electrolyte also reduces the concentration

210: of adsorbate ions S$^z$ in the DDL, while a relatively low concentration

211: of adsorbate ions relative to the solvent reduces their concentration

212: in the OHL relative to the IHL. In this approximation we can

213: therefore replace the total surface excess of adsorbate ions,

214: $\Gamma_\mathrm{S}$, by the surface coverage $\theta$ of the specifically

215: adsorbed, partially discharged

216: species S$^{z+\lambda}$ in the IHL \cite{VETT72A}. 

217: The coverage is defined as the number of specifically adsorbed ions per

218: adsorption site on the surface. In what follows, we shall use $\theta$

219: as an approximation for the more general $\Gamma_\mathrm{S}$. 

220: 

221: In Ref.~\cite{VETT72A}, the electrosorption valency is defined as 

222: \begin{equation}

223: \gamma = 

224: \left( \frac{\partial \mu_\mathrm{S} }{\partial E} \right)_{\theta}

225: \;,

226: \label{eq:gam}

227: \end{equation}

228: where $\mu_\mathrm{S}$ 

229: is the {\it chemical\/} potential of S$^z$ in the bulk

230: solution. From this and a general adsorption isotherm corresponding

231: to the reaction equation (\ref{eq:ads}), they obtain the relation

232: \begin{equation}

233: \gamma = \gamma_\mathrm{PZC} 

234: -

235: \frac{1}{e} \int_{E_\mathrm{PZC}}^E 

236: \left( \frac{\partial C_\mathrm{D}}{\partial \theta} \right)_E

237: \mathrm{d} E'

238: \;,

239: \label{eq:gam2}

240: \end{equation}

241: where $e$ is the elementary charge unit and $C_\mathrm{D}$ is the

242: capacitance of the compact double layer (metal vs.\ IHL). The

243: subscript PZC refers to the Potential of Zero Charge. The value of 

244: $\gamma$ at the PZC is 

245: \begin{equation}

246: \gamma_\mathrm{PZC} 

247: = 

248: gz - \lambda(1-g) + \kappa_\mathrm{ad} - \nu \kappa_\mathrm{w} 

249: \;.

250: \label{eq:gam3}

251: \end{equation}

252: Here, $\kappa_\mathrm{ad}$ and $\kappa_\mathrm{w}$ refer to the

253: effects of the dipole moments of the adsorbate and water,

254: respectively, and can usually be neglected for inorganic, aqueous

255: electrolytes. The factor 

256: $g =

257: (\phi_\mathrm{IHL}-\phi_\mathrm{OHL})/

258: (\phi_\mathrm{met}-\phi_\mathrm{OHL})$ is the ratio of the

259: potential difference between the adsorbate and the OHL to that

260: between the metal and the OHL and is frequently of the order of 0.2. 

261: A simple interpretation of

262: the schematic Fig.~\ref{fig:one} with a near-linear potential

263: profile would lead to the traditional

264: interpretation of $g$ as a purely geometric

265: factor. For more realistic microscopic models that lead to a nonlinear

266: potential profile, such as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:one},

267: the connection of $g$ to the geometry of the interface region is less clear. 

268: 

269: Equations (\ref{eq:gam2}) and~(\ref{eq:gam3}) reveal two important

270: approximations in our Refs.~\cite{HAMA05B,HAMA03}. The first is

271: that the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam2}) is approximated by a

272: linear function in the coverage $\theta$. This is reasonable since

273: any changes in $\gamma$ with $E$ are likely to be largely due to

274: the increased crowding on the surface. 

275: 

276: The second approximation, which is expressed in Sec.~2.2 of our 

277: Ref.~\cite{HAMA05B} (and also quoted verbatim in the fifth paragraph

278: of LH \cite{LANG06B}), is that we take $g=0$. This leads to

279: Lorentz' approximation $\gamma_\mathrm{PZC} = - \lambda$

280: \cite{LORE61} and corresponds to the situation that the full

281: potential drop happens between the bulk metal and the IHL. A somewhat 

282: better approximation is probably the minimum value for water, 

283: $g_\mathrm{min} \approx 0.16$, obtained by Schultze and Koppitz

284: \cite{SCHU76B}. 

285: 

286: \section{Surface Charge and Potentiostatic Current}

287: \label{sec:Q}

288: 

289: The crucial problem of the interpretation of $\gamma$ in terms of

290: the current in the external circuit is treated by Vetter and  Schultze

291: in Ref.~\cite{VETT72B}. The central point is that even a

292: partial discharge corresponding to $\lambda \neq 0$ merely

293: corresponds to a {\it redistribution of charge in the interface

294: region\/}. Therefore, all currents in the circuit are {\it

295: capacitive\/}, corresponding to changes in the excess charge

296: density on the metal, $q_\mathrm{met}$, and the corresponding

297: quantity on the electrolyte side, $q_\mathrm{e}$. (By the

298: requirement of charge neutrality, $q_\mathrm{e} = - q_\mathrm{met}$.)

299: Considering $q_\mathrm{met}$ as a function of $\theta$ and $E$, 

300: one thus gets the current density 

301: \begin{equation}

302: i = \frac{\mathrm{d} q_\mathrm{met}}{\mathrm{d} t}

303: = \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial \theta} \right)_E 

304:   \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta }{\mathrm{d} t}

305: + 

306: \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial E} \right)_\theta 

307:   \frac{\mathrm{d} E }{\mathrm{d} t}

308: \;.

309: \label{eq:i}

310: \end{equation}

311: From the electrocapillary equation for the compact double layer 

312: (i.e., the full differential of the surface free energy density

313: or ``surface tension" $\sigma$),

314: \begin{equation}

315: - \mathrm{d} \sigma = 

316: (z_\mathrm{met} \Gamma_\mathrm{met} - \Gamma_{e^-} + \lambda \theta) e 

317: \, \mathrm{d} E + \theta \mathrm{d} \mu_\mathrm{S} 

318: + \sum_j \Gamma_j \mathrm{d} \mu_j 

319: \;,

320: \label{eq:elcap}

321: \end{equation}

322: they obtain 

323: \begin{equation}

324: q_\mathrm{met} \equiv  

325: \left( \frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial E} \right)_{\mu_\mathrm{S},\mu_j} 

326: =

327: (z_\mathrm{met} \Gamma_\mathrm{met} - \Gamma_{e^-} 

328:                   + \lambda \theta) e

329: \;,

330: \label{eq:qm}

331: \end{equation}

332: where $z_\mathrm{met}$, $\Gamma_\mathrm{met}$, and $\Gamma_{e^-}$ refer

333: to the ions and conduction electrons of the electrode. 

334: The current density {\it at constant potential\/},

335: $i_\mathrm{pot}$, is thus obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:i}) by 

336: setting $\mathrm{d} E / \mathrm{d} t = 0$.

337: The necessary relation to $\gamma$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam})

338: is found by writing

339: \begin{equation}

340: \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial \theta} \right)_E 

341: = \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial \mu_{\mathrm S}} \right)_E

342: \left( \frac{\partial \mu_\mathrm{S}}{\partial \theta} \right)_E

343: \label{eq:chain}

344: \end{equation}

345: and using the Maxwell relation obtained from the electrocapillary equation,

346: \begin{equation}

347: \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial \mu_\mathrm{S}} \right)_{E}

348: =

349: \left( \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial E} \right)_{\mu_\mathrm{S}}

350: \;,

351: \label{eq:max}

352: \end{equation}

353: together with the standard equality for any three quantities

354: related by a single equation, 

355: \begin{equation}

356: \left( \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial E} \right)_{\mu_\mathrm{S}}

357: \left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial \mu_\mathrm{S}} \right)_{\theta}

358: \left( \frac{\partial \mu_\mathrm{S}}{\partial \theta} \right)_{E}

359: = -1

360: \;.

361: \label{eq:std}

362: \end{equation}

363: Thus,

364: \begin{equation}

365: i_\mathrm{pot} = 

366: \left( \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{met}}{\partial \theta} \right)_E

367: \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta }{\mathrm{d} t}

368: = - \gamma e \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta }{\mathrm{d} t}

369:   \;.

370: \label{eq:ipot}

371: \end{equation}

372: 

373: To appreciate this derivation it is important to realize that the

374: current at constant potential is not a simple quantity.

375: As pointed out by Schmickler \cite{SCHM88}, 

376: conceptually it involves two steps: first the adsorption of the ion

377: and corresponding buildup of the image charge, {\it which changes

378: the potential\/}, followed by readjustment of the charges to bring

379: the potential back to its original value. 

380: Without a detailed, microscopic model, 

381: these semimacroscopic, thermodynamic results cannot tell us

382: in detail how the charges are distributed in the interface region. 

383: This is a major limitation of the concept of electrosorption valency. 

384: 

385: The  applicability of the results summarized above 

386: to reversible electrodes (as opposed to

387: perfectly polarizable ones) was questioned by Frumkin, Damaskin,

388: and Petrii in Ref.~\cite{FRUM74}. 

389: In response, Vetter and Schultze explicitly established  

390: the validity of their results for reversible electrodes 

391: in Ref.~\cite{VETT74}. 

392: 

393: 

394: \section{Surface Dipole Moment}

395: \label{sec:P}

396: 

397: While the quantities discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Q} are purely

398: thermodynamic quantities (in the case of excess supporting

399: electrolyte), a microscopic theory of the interface structure is

400: necessary to estimate the dipole moment associated with adsorption

401: of an ion \cite{SCHM88,SCHM87,FORE96}. 

402: Generally, the dipole moment of a (one-dimensional) 

403: charge distribution $q(x)$ is defined as 

404: \begin{equation}

405: p = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} x \, q(x) \, \mathrm{d} x

406: \;.

407: \label{eq:dip}

408: \end{equation}

409: The result is independent of the coordinate system if 

410: the integration limits are chosen such that charge neutrality

411: is obeyed over $[x_1,x_2]$: 

412: $\int_{x_1}^{x_2} q(x) \, \mathrm{d} x = 0$ \cite{JACK75}. 

413: The charge distribution produces a potential difference, $\phi_2 -

414: \phi_1 = p/\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant

415: of the medium. The details depend on the microscopic model. 

416: 

417: The approximation used in Ref.~\cite{HAMA05B} is the commonly used

418: one \cite{WAND01,WASI02B}, due to Bange et al.\ \cite{BANG87}

419: and Schmickler \cite{SCHM96,SCHM88}, 

420: \begin{equation}

421: p = \frac{z e \epsilon}{C_\mathrm{H}} 

422: \left(1 - \frac{\gamma}{z} \right) \;,

423: \label{eq:dip2}

424: \end{equation}

425: where $C_\mathrm{H}$ is the Helmholtz capacity. 

426: This result is derived under the condition of charge neutrality

427: (but not necessarily vanishing dipole moment) over the DDL. It can be

428: obtained simply within the picture illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}

429: as follows. The dipole moment is related to the potential drop from

430: the metal to the layer of specifically adsorbed ions as 

431: $p = \epsilon (\phi_\mathrm{met} - \phi_\mathrm{IHL}) 

432: = \epsilon (1-g) E$. Assuming the field dependence of

433: $\gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam2}) can be included in $g$ and $\lambda$,

434: and ignoring the polarization terms $\kappa$ when solving  

435: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam3}) for $(1-g)$, we obtain 

436: \begin{equation}

437: p = \frac{z \epsilon E}{z+\lambda}\left( 1 - \frac{\gamma}{z} \right)

438: \;.

439: \label{eq:dip3}

440: \end{equation}

441: By setting $C_\mathrm{H} = e (z+\lambda)/E$, we get 

442: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dip2}), which can be rewritten in terms of $(1-g)$ and

443: the partial charge-transfer coefficient $\lambda$ as 

444: \begin{equation}

445: p = \frac{z e \epsilon}{C_\mathrm{H}} 

446: \left( 1-g \right) \left(1 + \frac{\lambda}{z} \right) 

447: \;.

448: \label{eq:dip4}

449: \end{equation} 

450: The prefactor $z e \epsilon / C_\mathrm{H}$

451: can be viewed as an effective {\it dipole distance\/}. However, due to

452: screening by both the liquid and the electron gas of the metal,

453: this distance is generally much smaller than the ionic radius of the

454: adsorbate \cite{SCHM88,SCHM87}. Equation~(\ref{eq:dip4}) with $g=0$

455: was the one used in Ref.~\cite{HAMA05B}

456: for the dipole moment, and therefore for the lateral adsorbate 

457: interactions. 

458: 

459: An alternative approach is to consider the surface dipole moment as the

460: basic, physical quantity, and $\gamma$ as a derived quantity linked to

461: $p$ by Eq.~(\ref{eq:dip2}) under assumption of the geometric model

462: described in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}. 

463: 

464: 

465: \section{Conclusion}

466: \label{sec:C}

467: 

468: In this discussion paper we have summarized arguments showing that 

469: the electrosorption valency

470: $\gamma$ as defined by Vetter and Schultze \cite{VETT72A} gives the

471: correct result for the current in the external circuit due to

472: adsorption of an ion of charge $ze$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ipot}) \cite{VETT72B}, 

473: as well as the

474: relation between $\gamma$ and the charge-transfer coefficient

475: $\lambda$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam3}) \cite{VETT72A}. These results show that

476: there is no need for coadsorption with an oppositely charged ion to

477: reduce the current per adsorbate particle from $ze$, to

478: $\gamma e$. We note that the derivation of these results requires

479: charge neutrality over the whole interface region, as indicated in

480: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}, not separately over the electrolyte and the

481: compact double layer, as we understand the argument of LH to

482: imply. We believe the reason for their conclusion that partial

483: charge transfer cannot change the current is a result of their

484: overly strict charge-neutrality requirement. 

485: 

486: Beyond these general results, we have shown that the approximations

487: used in Refs.~\cite{HAMA05B,HAMA03} are excess supporting electrolyte

488: and vanishing of the factor $g$. While certainly

489: not exact, these assumptions are reasonable for the systems studied

490: and give very good

491: agreement between the computer simulations of the lattice-gas model

492: and the experimental adsorption isotherms. 

493: 

494: Finally we note that the arguments given here are based on

495: classical thermodynamics with no specific assumptions on the

496: microscopic structure of the interface region, beyond the charge

497: neutrality. In order to obtain explicit results for microscopic

498: parameters without fitting to experiments, one would need

499: quantum-statistical-mechanical calculations that are still beyond

500: our computational capacity. Only such future calculations 

501: have the potential to determine

502: explicitly such quantities as the surface dipole moment and the

503: spatial distribution of charge and dipole moments in the whole interfacial

504: region. 

505: 

506: 

507: \section*{Acknowledgments}

508: 

509: We appreciate comments on the manuscript by S.~Frank. 

510: 

511: This work was supported in part by U.S.\ National Science

512: Foundation Grant No.\ DMR-0240078, by Florida State University

513: through its Center for Materials Research and Technology and its 

514: School of Computational Science, and by Research Centre J{\"u}lich. 

515: 

516: 

517: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;

518: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections

519: % \appendix

520: 

521: % \section{}

522: % \label{}

523: 

524: %\bibliography{elchem.bib}

525: %\bibliographystyle{elsart-num}

526: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}

527: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

528: 

529: %\begin{thebibliography}{00}

530: 

531: % \bibitem{label}

532: % Text of bibliographic item

533: 

534: % notes:

535: % \bibitem{label} \note

536: 

537: % subbibitems:

538: % \begin{subbibitems}{label}

539: % \bibitem{label1}

540: % \bibitem{label2}

541: % If there is a note, it should come last:

542: % \bibitem{label3} \note

543: % \end{subbibitems}

544: 

545: %\bibitem{}

546: 

547: %\end{thebibliography}

548: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

549: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

550:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

551: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

552: 

553: \bibitem{LANG06B}

554: G.~G. L{\'a}ng, G.~Hor{\'a}nyi, 

555: %Remarks on the simulation of cl electrosorption

556: %on ag(100) reported in electrochimica acta 50 (2005) 5518, 

557: Electrochim.\ Acta XX (2006) yy.

558: 

559: \bibitem{VETT72A}

560: K.~J. Vetter, J.~W. Schultze, 

561: %Potentialabh{\"a}ngigkeit von elektrosorptionsgleichgewichten 

562: %und die elektrosorptionswertigkeit $\gamma^*$, 

563: Ber.\ Bunsenges.\ Phys.\ Chem. 76 (1972) 920--927.

564: 

565: \bibitem{VETT72B}

566: K.~J. Vetter, J.~W. Schultze, 

567: %Stromflu{\ss} bei elektrosorptionsprozessen und

568: %elektrosorptionswertigkeit $\gamma^*$, 

569: Ber.\ Bunsenges.\ Phys.\ Chem. 76 (1972) 927--933.

570: 

571: \bibitem{HAMA05B}

572: I.~Abou~Hamad, S.~J. Mitchell, Th.~Wandlowski, P.~A. Rikvold, G.~Brown, 

573: %Cl electrosorption on ag(100): Lateral interactions and 

574: %electrosorption valency from comparison of monte carlo simulations 

575: %with chronocoulometry experiments,

576: Electrochim.\ Acta 50 (2005) 5518--5525.

577: 

578: \bibitem{HAMA03}

579: I.~Abou~Hamad, Th.~Wandlowski, G.~Brown, P.~A. Rikvold, 

580: %Electrosorption of br and cl on ag(100): Experiments and 

581: %computer simulations, 

582: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 554-555 (2003) 211--219.

583: 

584: \bibitem{LORE61}

585: W.~Lorentz, G.~Salie, 

586: %Zum mechanismus der electrochemischen phasengrenzreaktion, 

587: Z.\ phys.\ Chem.\ (Leipzig) 218 (1961) 259--271.

588: 

589: \bibitem{SCHM96}

590: W.~Schmickler, Interfacial Electrochemistry, Oxford Univ.\ Press, 

591: New York, 1996.

592: 

593: \bibitem{SCHU73}

594: J.~W. Schultze, K.~J. Vetter, 

595: %Experimental determination and interpretation of

596: % the electrosorption valency $\gamma$, 

597: Electrochim.\ Acta 44 (1973) 63--81.

598: 

599: \bibitem{VETT74}

600: K.~J. Vetter, J.~W. Schultze, 

601: %General aspects of the electrosorption valency.

602: %thermodynamic problems and nonthermodynamic analysis, 

603: Electrochim.\ Acta 53 (1974) 67--76.

604: 

605: \bibitem{SCHU76B}

606: J.~W. Schultze, F.~D. Koppitz, 

607: %Bond formation in electrosorbates -- i.

608: %correlation between the electrosorption valency and pauling's

609: %electronegativity for aqueous solutions, 

610: Electrochim.\ Acta 21 (1976) 327--336.

611: 

612: \bibitem{SCHU97}

613: J.~W. Schultze, D.~Rolle, 

614: %The partial discharge of electrosorbates and its

615: %influence in electrocatalysis, 

616: Can.\ J.\ Chem. 75 (1997) 1750--1758.

617: 

618: \bibitem{SCHU03}

619: J.~W. Schultze, D.~Rolle, 

620: %The electrosorption valency and charge distribution

621: %in the double layer. the influence of surface structure 

622: %and the adsorption of aromatic molecules, 

623: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 552 (2003) 163--169.

624: 

625: \bibitem{FRUM74}

626: A.~Frumkin, B.~Damaskin, O.~Petrii, 

627: %On the charge transfer in the process of

628: % adsorption at the electrode/solution interface., 

629: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 53 (1974) 57--65.

630: 

631: \bibitem{SCHM88}

632: W.~Schmickler, 

633: %The surface dipole moment of species adsorbed from a solution,

634: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 249 (1988) 25--33.

635: 

636: \bibitem{SCHM87}

637: W.~Schmickler, R.~Guidelli, 

638: %Ionic adsorption and the surface dipole potential,

639: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 235 (1987) 387--392.

640: 

641: \bibitem{FORE96}

642: M.~L. Foresti, M.~Innocenti, H.~Kobayashi, G.~Pezzatini, R.~Guidelli, 

643: %Bromide electrosorption on the low-index faces of silver, 

644: J.\ Chem.\ Soc.\ Faraday Trans. 92 (1996) 3747--3756.

645: 

646: \bibitem{JACK75}

647: J.~D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Ed., Wiley, 

648: New York, 1975, Ch. 4.

649: 

650: \bibitem{WAND01}

651: Th.~Wandlowski, J.~X. Wang, B.~M. Ocko, 

652: %Adsorption of bromide at the ag(100) electrode surface, 

653: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 500 (2001) 418--434.

654: 

655: \bibitem{WASI02B}

656: S.~A. Wasileski, M.~J. Weaver, 

657: %Electrode potential-dependent anion chemisorption and surface 

658: %bond polarization as assessed by density functional theory, 

659: J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ B 106 (2002) 4782--4788.

660: 

661: \bibitem{BANG87}

662: K.~Bange, B.~Straehler, J.~K. Sass, R.~Parsons, 

663: %The interaction of br with ag(110): Comparison of electrochemical 

664: %and gas-phase adsorption measurements,

665: J.\ Electroanal.\ Chem. 229 (1987) 87--98.

666: 

667: \end{thebibliography}

668: 

669: \clearpage

670: 

671: \begin{figure}[tbp]

672: \begin{center}

673: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.60\textwidth]{reply1.eps}

674: \end{center}

675: \caption[]{

676: Schematic picture of the interface region at the working electrode

677: {\bf (a)}, the electrostatic 

678: potential $\phi$ as a function of distance $x$ perpendicular to the 

679: surface in the general case {\bf (b)} and in the case of excess

680: supporting electrolyte {\bf (c)}. Here, IHL stands for the inner

681: Helmholtz layer, OHL for the outer Helmholtz layer, and DDL for the

682: diffuse double layer. Large circles with a minus sign 

683: represent the adsorbate ions, and small circles with an arrow

684: indicating a dipole moment represent water molecules. 

685: After Ref.~\protect\cite{VETT72A}. 

686: }

687: \label{fig:one}

688: \end{figure}

689: 

690: 

691: \end{document}

692: 

693: