See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314082029

CONDUCTIVITY CELL CONSTANT REVISITED

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 352

7 authors, including:

Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru Oana-Claudia Barbu

Polytechnic University of Bucharest Geological Institute of Romania
8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Danut-Ionel Vaireanu
Polytechnic University of Bucharest
111 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nicolae Teclu - the perpetual flame of chemistry View project

Composite membranes for fuel cells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oana-Claudia Barbu on 27 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bulletin of Romanian Chemical Engineering Society, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016 ISSN 2360-4697

CONDUCTIVITY CELL CONSTANT REVISITED

,
Ioana-Alina CIOBOTARU Florin Mihai BENGA, Oana Claudia
BARBU, George Costin LAZAR, Claudiu CAMPUREANU, Traian RUS
and Danut-Ionel VAIREANU

University Politehnica of Bucharest, Faculty of Applied Chemistry and Materials

Science, Depart. of Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and
Electrochemistry,
Abstract.
This paper discusses various problems associated with the determination/calibration of the
conductivity cell constant, encountered during the practical evaluation of conductivity in
liquids, and attempt to present some conventional and non-conventional solutions (some of
them based on novel conductivity probe constructive solutions, which allow an easy
modification of the probe configuration and hence the variation of the cell constant) to
solve these problems. A procedure for manual temperature compensation, as well as one
for replatinising the cell electrodes are also presented.

Key words: conductivity, cell constant, manual temperature compensation,

calibration
1. Introduction

The electric current is carried out in solutions, conducting polymer or in

certain solid material (e.g. SOFC) by ions and hence the process is called ionic
conduction. The electrical conductance, G and the specific conductivity, also
known as electrolytic conductivity or simpler, the conductivity, , are a measure of
the ability of a solution subjected to an electric field to conduct an electrical
current in the above said materials [1-10]. If a substance has a high electrical
conductance G, the corresponding electrical or ohmic resistance R is low and vice
versa so that the electrical conductance is given, by definition, by the reciprocal of
the resistance:
1
G
R (1)
-1
The unit of measure for G is called Siemens, S or .
However, the specific conductivity, , (the reciprocal of the electrical
resistivity, ), the molar conductivity, m, and the equivalent conductivity, e are
preferred as they carry more information related to the measured species
comparing to the conductance. Notations as and are also used to designate the
specific conductivity [4-7], [9-14]. In order to avoid any confusions between the

Corresponding author: ioanaalinaciobotaru@yahoo.com

34
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

conductivity and the cell constant, Kcell, for the purpose of this paper, the notation
shall be used for the specific conductivity, sometimes shortened as conductivity.
Although these terms are also present in electronic conductors such as metals,
alloys, graphite, semiconductors, the subject of this paper shall be restricted to the
electrolytic conductivity (ionic conduction mechanisms).
The determination of specific conductivity is particularly important when
one evaluates not only the conduction of liquids, but also the ionic conduction of
conductive polymers or ion exchange membranes [11-17].
Conductivity units

There is still some ambiguity when one attaches the units for the
conductivity. Specific conductivity, by definition, is the conduction capacity of a
3
volume of 1 m of an electrolyte solution when subjected to a potential gradient
. -1 -1. -1
equal to 1 volt/m and is measured S m or m
1
(2)
. -1 -1. -1
where is the resistivity. Accepted units are also S cm or cm . This duality
comes from the fact that in 1971 the unit S, siemens, named after Werner von
Siemens, was adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures as an
. -1
SI derived unit and hence the unit for the specific conductivity evolved into S m .
. -1
In USA, it is still accepted the use of mho cm , the designatory letters mho
representing ohm spelled backwards and being equal from the mathematical point
of view to the reciprocal of that [3], [8].
Molar conductivity is the conductivity of an electrolyte solution normalised
-1. 2. -1 . 2. -1
with respect to its molar concentration, and hence the unit, m mol or S m mol ,
while the equivalent conductivity is the conductivity of an electrolyte solution
-1. 2. -1
normalised with respect to its equivalent concentration, the unit being cm Eg
. 2. -1
or S cm Eg :
v
c (3)
v
e
cz z (4)

2. Experimental

Reagents
All the reagents used were p.a. grade supplied by Sigma-Aldrich, Chempar
Ltd and ChimReactiv SRL.

35
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

Apparatus and procedure

A series of conductivity meters of diverse range and feature, analogue and
digital, with and without automatic temperature compensation such of CyberScan
PCD 6500, Phywe Cobra 3 Chem-Unit, Radelkis OK102/1 App-Chem 470,
Hanna Instruments 4 were used in conjunction with two, three and four electrode
cells. The analogue instruments were also connected to a PicoLog ADC100
computer controlled data acquisition system.
3. Results and discussions

Considerations regarding the conductivity cell constant

Taking into account that the conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity,
one may write a relationship between the resistance and the conductivity:
K
1l cell
R
S (5)
where l is the distance between electrodes and S is the surface area. The ratio
K l
cell S ,

a specific property of the measuring conductivity cell, is called the cell constant,
-1 -1
and is measured in m or cm . It should be pointed out that the above
relationship, calculated as the ratio of the distance between the electrodes and the
electrodes common surface represents the geometrical cell constant and that
differs from the real cell constant which is determined experimentally.
Moreover, as there are an increased number of cell designs with a
combination of 2, 3 or 4 electrodes, it is almost impossible to determine the real
cell constant from its physical dimensions, as the current distribution between
these electrode combinations varies greatly. To make things even more difficult,
. -1
as the practical conductivities vary over six orders of magnitude, from μS cm to
. -1
S cm , it is very difficult to use only one cell constant to cover the entire field
-1
(e.g. a conductivity cell having Kcell=1cm may be used for low to relatively high
values of conductivity), high conductivity values requiring high cell constants,
while low conductivity values require low cell constants, the range of cell
-1 -1
constants varying between 0.01 cm and 50 cm [3].
To overcome this shortcoming, one may use multiple conductivity cells
having different cell constants (a high cost option). Another option is to
electronically modify the cell constant, obtaining full accuracy over a greater
conductivity range using a single conductivity cell [3], but this also increases the
investment cost requiring an expensive equipment. Nevertheless, similar results
may be achieved using a conductivity cell with a physical adjustable cell constant,

36
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

where the cell constant can be changed either by changing the electrodes distance
or by changing the electrodes surface [3, 8, 18, 19]. In figures 1 and 2 are
represented the main elements of such a cell, where in-between the two platinised
platinum electrodes one inserts PTFE templates of different thicknesses and
different patterns. By changing the templates, one can easily change the distance
between the electrodes and the electrode surface as only the electrode area
equivalent with the area of the cut channel will be exposed to the solution.
The feature of this conductivity cell is that one achieves a wide range of
-1
cell constants (between 0.5 and 15 cm ) without the need of electronic
compensation, these configurations allowing an extra degree of freedom to modify
the hydrodynamic range, should one need to use the cell as a flow-through cell.
The construction of this type of conductivity cell consists of a “sandwich”
of two platinised platinum half-cells, inserted into PERSPEX layers, and various
interchangeable PTFE templates which have rectangular channels cut, so that a
wide range of configurations can be covered (see figure 1 and figure 2). The
templates have various thicknesses to provide a controlled variable distance
between the electrodes when the templates are inserted between the half-cells.

Fig. 1. Platinised platinum half-cells. 1. Platinised platinum electrodes; 2.

PERSPEX supports 3. Alignment holes and pins; 4. Fluid inlet; 5. Fluid outlet

The novel variable cell constant conductivity cell presented in this paper
consists of two platinised platinum electrodes, 1, (see figure 3), of a geometric
2
surface area S, of 1 cm , positioned in a PODEC (parallel opposed dual electrode
cell) configuration, at a distance, l, adjustable (between 1.34 mm and 24.59 mm,
measured with a Mitutoyo digital micrometer of 0.001 mm resolution). By
twisting the micrometer screw, one may now increase or decrease the electrodes
distance and hence may adjust the conductivity cell at will. Unlike the
configurations presented in figure 1 and 2, which can be used only in conjunction
with a flow injection analysis system, this novel cell may also be used in more
traditional experiments involving all sorts of shapes and sizes of chemical
glassware.

37
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

Fig. 2. PTFE templates. 1. PTFE; 2. Channel 3. Alignment holes

Fig. 3. Variable constant conductivity cell. 1. Platinised platinum electrodes 2. Electrical

connecting wires 3. Micrometric screw 4. Articulated joints 5. Insulating rods.

This cell presents also the advantage that, once it is calibrated and the
dependence between the cell constant and the electrode distance is established,
fig. 4, one may now change the cell constant simply by counting the number of
turns of the micrometric screw, fig. 5.

38
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

3,00
K practic, cm‐
2,50
1
2,00
k, 1/cm

1,50

1,00
0,50

0,00
0,000 0,500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
l, cm

Fig. 4. The dependence of the cell constant, k, versus the electrode distance, l.

3,00
K practic, cm‐
2,50 1
2,00
1/cm1
,50
K
,

1,00

0,50

0,00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
n

Fig. 5. The dependence of the cell constant, k, versus the number of turns of the
micrometric screw, n.

Troubleshootings involving the cell calibration and the determination of

conductivity cell constant
As time goes by, the cell is prone to be adversely affected by a number of
factors that may lead to the modification of the value of the cell constant (scale,
wax, biological growths, oils, gum, etc). A conductivity meter will measure,
besides the current that flows between the shortest path between the two
electrodes, also the roundabout smaller share of current, so that it is necessary to
calibrate the system (determine the conductivity cell constant) [3], [8]. This is

39
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

achieved by using calibration standard solutions, which should be near to the high
end of the range of operation for the cell conductivity. Normally, a slim beaker
should be used and the cell has to be suspended above the bottom rather than left
to sit on the bottom of the beaker. As the air bubbles cause errors in conductivity
readings by masking certain areas of the electrodes, one has to remove the air by
gently tapping the cell or raising and lowering it to get rid of the trapped bubbles.
As there is an initial drift, one shall start the calibration procedure only when there
is little or no variation in the acquired values (stable readings) [3].
There is an equivalence in the determination of the conductivity cell
constant and calibrating the conductivity cell. If one uses an AC compensating
bridge (e.g. Kohlrausch bridge), then the cell constant must be determined before
the measurements, as the conductivity is calculated as a ratio of the cell constant
and the value of the measured resistance (in fact impedance) [3-10]:
K
cell

R (6)
In order to determine the cell constant for the above said purpose, one
o
should dry approximately 5 g of KCl in an oven at about 110 C for 8 hours, and
then place it in a dessicator and leave it to cool to the room temperature. A
quantity of 0.7455 g should be weigh precisely and transferred into a clean, dry
o
1000 mL volumetric flask, and filled with distilled water of 25 C to the mark. If
o o
the flask was graded for 20 C, then the water must have 20 C. The conductivity
cell/probe is soaked in distilled or deionised water for 15 minute, dried and
immersed in a slim beaker containing the calibration solution. Using a Kohlrausch
bridge or an equivalent system and a thermostated system to maintain the
o
calibration sample at 25 C, one shall determine now the value of the resistance
. -1
and knowing the value of the calibration sample conductivity (1413 μS cm ) the
Kcell R
cell constant is calculated as . Should the calibration take place at a
different temperature, then a temperature compensation procedure (as explained
below) must be followed to ensure the best accuracy for this determination.
The standard solution may be stored in a HDPE storage bottle for up to
one year. For different calibration standards, only the amount of KCl differs, the
procedure remains the same. If a proper conductivity meter is used, then the
calibration is carried out using a standard calibrating sample solution of known
conductivity and adjusting the calibration knob (or pressing the calibration button
for digital equipment) until the displayed value is identical to that written on the
calibration standard sample.
Calibration troubleshooting
If the cell constant differs with more than 15% from the initial value, as a
result of some physical changes or surface deplatination, some conductivity

40
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

meters will abort the calibration procedure (see figure 6), suggesting buying a new
conductivity cell. The cell may be revived by replatination (as discussed below) or
by a fine tuning using a simple external precision variable resistance (a Voltcraft
precision resistance decade box R-Box 01 - 1% precision, 0.3 W - was used)
connected in series with the conductivity cell, so that the software is tricked to
accept the constant cell as being within the manufacturer prescribed range and
will calibrate the cell (figure 7), supplying at the same time the value of the
conductivity cell constant. As one can see, the difference in the value of the cell
-1 -1
constant was only 1% above the accepted limits (1.016 cm instead of 1.015 cm
-1
for a conductivity cell of 1 cm ).
This procedure was successfully used in the calibration of another novel
multiparameter electrochemical cell employed for the characterisation and the
determination of the optimum hydrolysis time, reported in details in [21].

Fig. 6. A screen capture of a calibration failure

Fig. 7. A screen capture of a successful calibration

41
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

Cleaning and storing the cell/probe troubleshooting

As the conductivity measurements are carried out not only in clean
solutions but also in solutions loaded with particulate materials, biological
materials or organics, the conductivity cells have to be cleaned before storage.
Should this case arise, the cell constant changes its value when the platinised
platinum is contaminated or partially removed, so that the cell needs cleaning.
For the removal of organics and some biological materials, the cell is
cleaned either with a 20% isopropanol solution or with a mild liquid detergent
(washing up detergent). After the rinsing, it is immersed in dilute nitric acid (1%
wt) and stirred for 3 to 5 minutes. Dilute hydrochloric acid or sulphuric acid may
be used when particulate materials such as carbonates are attached to the
electrodes. If the cell is heavily loaded, concentrated HCl mixed with a 50%
isopropanol solution may be used.
The cell is rinsed several times with distilled or deionised water and
recalibrated before use. For a short period of storage, after the cleaning, the cell is
immersed in distilled or deionised water (wet storage). If a longer storage period
is needed, it may be stored dry, protected with a plastic sleeve [3], [8-10], [18-19].
Obviously, it requires calibration before use and if the calibration does not yield
the expected values, it may require replatination.
Cell constant out of range troubleshooting / Electrodes replatination
If the cell does not hold the calibration or the cell constant drifts with more
than 50% from its nominal value, the cell/probe should be replaced or
replatinised. In order to do this, the black platinum electrodes are cleaned in aqua
regia for 30 seconds, a solution of 0.025 N HCl with 3% H2PtCl6 and 0.025%
Pb(CH3 COO)2 is prepared and the cell is platinised for 10 minutes at a current
. -2
density of 5-10 mA cm , reversing the polarity every 30 seconds, until a
consistent black deposit is noticed on the electrodes [18], [19]. The cell is rinsed
with distilled water and electrolysed in 0.1 M sulphuric acid for 5 minutes to
remove excess chlorine, rinsed again in distilled water and stored either in
distilled water (short term) or dry/stored until ready to use. A calibration
procedure should be carried out before use. Alternatively, replatination of cell
electrodes may be carried out following the procedure described in [1].
Temperature Compensation
Measurements in thermostated solutions cannot be carried out in all cases,
either by the impracticability of thermostating the solutions (conductivity of a
river or lake water) or by the inherent rapid variation of the solution temperature
in a certain given process, so that temperature compensation should be taken into
account, as the conductivity varies with temperature roughly in the range of 1-
2%/ºC. In the absence of such temperature compensation, the measurements are

42
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

prone to unacceptable errors (e.g. a variation of about 25ºC leads to an error of

25x2%/ºC = 50% off). Most manufacturers of conductivity meters have solved
this problem by including a temperature sensor and designing the electronic
circuits for automatic temperature compensation. However, there are still in use
conductivity probes without this feature, so that a manual temperature
compensation must be carried out when temperature fluctuates or differs from
25ºC, considered as the reference temperature [3], [8].
A simplified formula for temperature compensation is analogue to that for
the variation of resistivity with temperature and is given by:
o 1 T 25
T 25C (7)
T
where is the measured conductivity of the solution at the actual temperature,

is the conductivity of that solution at25o 25ºC (may be taken from tables or
measured at that particular temperature),C is the temperature compensation factor
(some typical values of are presented in Table 1) and T is the actual temperature of
solution. Where the temperature compensation factor is not known, it can be
evaluated by plotting the value of conductivity versus temperature for a given
temperature range or by using the default values of 2-2.1%/ºC to compensate the
variation of conductivity with temperature [3], [8], [20]. The effect is stronger in
low conductivity solutions. Below is given a calculus sample for the manual
temperature compensation procedure.
Table 1
Most Common Temperature Compensation Factors [3], [20]
Substance % change / ºC
HCl 10% 1.56
HNO3 31% 1.39
H2SO 4 20% 1.45
KOH 8.4% 1.86
KCl below 5% 2.01
Acids 1-1.6
Bases 1.8-2.2
Salts 2.2-3
Water 2
Manual temperature compensation procedure
-1
A conductivity cell having the cell constant of 1 cm is subjected to a
o . -1
calibration procedure, at a temperature of 20 C, using a standard of 1413 μS cm
o
at 25 C [20]. The equipment does not have an automatic compensation feature,
nor a temperature sensor contained, so a manual compensation procedure needs to
be carried out. In order to do this, one has to:

43
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

a) immerse the conductivity cell into the standard solution and let it 5
minutes for the cell temperature and standard solution temperature to reach an
equilibrium;
o
b) measure precisely the standard solution temperature (let it be 20 C);
o
c) determine the standard conductivity value at 20 C;
1
o 1413 1 0.0201 20 25 1271 S cm (8)
KCl @20 C
d) adjust the value on the conductivity meter using the calibration knob to
. -1
the value of 1271 μS cm ;
e) remove the cell and insert it into a beaker containing a solution of
unknown concentration of KCl, at the same temperature and read the displayed
. -1
value, e.g. 825 μS cm (if the substance and/or the temperature are different, one
shall replace in the formula (9) the corresponding values for the temperature
compensation factor, from tables published in [20] or similar references and the
temperature);
o
f) calculate the conductivity for the corresponding temperature of 25 C;
825 1 0.0201 20 o
25 (9)
KCl unknown sample @ 25 C

825 917 S cm
1
o
KCl unknown sample @ 25 C
1
0.0201 20 25 (10)
6. Conclusions

Although the cost of conductivity meters came down, it remains still high
on the long term, due to the need for more than one conductivity cells/probes to
cover the whole range of values or to the need for conductivity cells/probes
replacement, once they are decalibrated by deplatinisation or electrode fouling.
The paper presents, besides a novel variable cell constant conductivity cell that
may be employed in a whole range of experiments requiring different conductivity
cell constants, some practical solutions to a number of problems associated with
conductivity measurements and the determination of the conductivity cell
constant, including that of artificially adjusting and bringing the cell constant
within the required equipment range, so that the digital conductivity meter will
accept the calibration, even though the cell constant differs more than 15% from
its initial value. A procedure for manual temperature compensation, as well as one
for replatinising the cell electrodes are also presented.
4. Acknowledgments

Special thanks go to Mr. Corneliu Andrei for providing the logistic support
and to Mrs. Mariana Andrei for supplying the necessary reagents.

44
 Ioana-Alina Ciobotaru, Florin Mihai Benga, Oana Claudia Barbu, George Costin Lazar, Claudiu
Campureanu, Traian Rus and Danut-Ionel Vaireanu

REFERENCES
[1]. Atanasiu, I.A., Manual de electrochimie generala, Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, București,
(1963), ch 3.
[2]. Murgulescu, I.G., Radovici, O.M., Introducere in chimia fizica, Ed.bAcademiei RSR,
București, (1986), 4, ch 4.
[3]. Shreiner, R.H., Pratt, K.W., Standard Reference Materials: Primary Standards and Standard
Reference Materials for Electrolytic Conductivity, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Special Publication, Gaithersburg, (2004), 260-142.
[4]. Zosky, C.G., Handbook of Electrochemistry, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (2007), ch 3.
[5]. Badea, T., Nicola, M, Vaireanu, D.I., Maior, I., Cojocaru, A., Electrochimie şi Coroziune, Ed.
MatrixRom, Bucureşti, (2005), ch. 3.
[6]. Vaszilcsin, N., Notiuni de electrochimie, Ed. Politehnica, Timisoara, (2004), ch 3.
[7]. Nemes, M., Vaszilcsin, N., Kellenberger, A., Electrochimie, principii si aplicatii, Ed.
Politehnica, Timisoara, (2004), ch 2.
[8]. IC Controls, Conductivity Theory and Measurement, Technical Articles 4-1, available online
at http://www.iccontrols.com/files/4-1.pdf.
[9]. Vaireanu, D.I., Electrochemistry, Ed. AGIR, Bucharest, (2006), ch 2.
[10]. Vaireanu, D.I., Handbook of Experimental Electrochemistry, Ed. Printech, Bucharest,
(2008), ch 2.
[11]. Vaireanu, D.I., Maior, I., Grigore, A, Săvoiu, D., The evaluation of ionic conductivity in
polymer electrolyte membranes, Rev. Chimie, 59, 10, (2008), 1140-1142.
[12]. Vaireanu, D.I., Cojocaru, A., Maior, I., Caprarescu, S., Practical considerations regarding the
measurement of ionic conductivity by EIS in conductive polymers, Chem. Bull.
“POLITEHNICA" Univ. of Timisoara, Series Chemistry and Environmental Engineering, 1-2,
(2008), 258-261.
[13]. Caprarescu, S, Vaireanu, D.I., Cojocaru, A., Maior, I., Sarbu, A., Removal of Copper Ions
from Electroplating Wastewater by Ion-exchange Membranes, Rev. Chim., 60, 7, (2009), 673-
677.
[14]. Caprarescu, S., Radu, A.L., Purcar, V., Ianchis, R., Sarbu, A., Ghiurea, M., Modrogan, C.,
Vaireanu, D.I., Périchaud, A., Ebrasu, D.I., Adsorbents/ion exchangers-PVA blend
2+
membranes: Preparation, characterization and performance for the removal of Zn by
electrodialysis, Applied Surface Science, 329, 65, (2015), 65-75.
[15]. Baicea, C.M., Luntraru, V.I., Vaireanu, D.I., Vasile, E., Trusca, R., Composite membranes
with poly (ether ether ketone) as support and polyaniline like structure, with potential
applications in fuel cells, Central European Journal of Chemistry, 11, 3, (2013), 438-445.
[16]. Caprarescu, S., Purcar, V., Vaireanu, D.I., Separation of copper ions from synthetically
prepared electroplating wastewater at different operating conditions using electrodialysis,
Separation Science and Technology, 47(16), (2012), 2273-2280.
[17]. Caprarescu, S., Vaireanu, D.I., Cojocaru, A., Maior, I., Purcar, V., A 3-cell electrodialysis
system for the removal of copper ions from electroplating wastewater, Optoelectronics and
Advanced Materials – Rapid Communications, 12, (2011), 1346-1351.
[18]. Vaireanu D.I., Olteanu C., Simion A., Electrochemical modular cell used in flow injection
analysis systems, Rev. Chimie, 52(3), (2001), 130-133.
[19]. Vaireanu, D.I., Olteanu, C., Mănoiu, A., Mistrianu, M., Proceedings of the 33rd
International Scientific Symposium of the Military Equipment and Technologies Research
Agency, Ed. Ministry of National Defence, vol.4, Military Chemistry, Ecology and
Environmental Protection, Bucharest, (2002), 81.
[20]. Deszo, D., Electrokemiai Tablazatok, Ed. Musyaki Konzvkiado, Budapest, (1965), ch 2.

45
 Conductivity cell constant revisited

[21]. Ciobotaru, I.A., Maior, I., Cojocaru, A., Caprarescu, S., Vaireanu, D.I., Ciobotaru, I.E., The determination of the
optimum hydrolysis time for silane films deposition, Applied Surface Science, 371, (2016), 275-280.

View publication stats