Viewpoint
http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
The pH of Aqueous NaOH/KOH Solutions: A
Critical and Non-trivial Parameter for
Electrocatalysis
Cite This: ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571
ACCESS
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Metrics & More
A queous sodium or potassium hydroxide (NaOH/
KOH) solutions are the standard basic/alkaline
Downloaded via 172.225.155.59 on April 6, 2023 at 09:59:32 (UTC).
electrolytes for many of the most important energy
storage processes, such as alkaline batteries, supercapacitors,
overall water splitting (OWS), the nitrogen reduction reaction
(NRR), the oxygen evolution reaction (OER), the hydrogen
evolution reaction (HER), the oxygen reduction reaction
(ORR), and the hydrogen oxidation reaction (HOR).1−3 In
these energy storage processes, the thermodynamics and
kinetics of the investigated reactions depend directly on the
pH of the electrolyte; however, until now, the pH values of
these solutions have been challenging to determine precisely.
The pH-dependent thermodynamic potentials for energy
transformations (e.g., from electric to chemical energy, Figure
1) are described by the Nernst equation,
RT
E TD = E ⊖ − ln Q
zF
where ETD is the thermodynamic (half-)cell redox potential
under the experimental conditions in V, E⊖ the standard (half-
)cell redox potential in V, R the universal gas constant in J
mol−1 K−1, T the temperature in K, z the number of transferred
electrons, F the Faraday constant in s A mol−1, and Q the
reaction quotient.
The reaction quotient for a chemical reaction (aA + bB →
[C]c [D]d
cC + dD) is defined as (e.g., for the reversible hydrogen
[A]a [B]b
electrode (RHE) in an aqueous alkaline solution H2O + e− →
0.5H2 + OH− and thus Q = (aH 20.5aOH− )/a H 2O). All
aforementioned energy storage processes involve protons as
products or reactants, and thus their reaction quotient, Nernst
equation, and ETD are pH dependent (see footnote 4).
Therefore, to determine the crucial (voltage) efficiency of
these energy storage processes or intermediate steps, the pH of
the electrolyte must be known precisely. Furthermore, pH and
temperature dependencies are important in investigating
reaction mechanisms and kinetics of any catalytic processes
involving proton transfer, and such investigations can only be
meaningful if precise and consistent pH values are used.5 This
leads to the questions of what the pH values of aqueous MOH
solutions (M = Na, K) actually are and how they can be exactly
determined.
© 2021 American Chemical Society
Read Online
*
Article Recommendations sı Supporting Information
We reviewed publications on electrocatalytic water splitting
and its half-reactions and found that the pH value of 1 M
KOH(aq) is reported to range from 13.5 to 14 at 25 °C (see
Figure 1, right, and Table S1), which is equivalent to a 300%
difference in OH− activity (0.32 at 13.5 and 1 at 14). Many
studies do not provide any information on the pH of their
system, and those that do often provide little to no detail on
the method or sources used for pH determination. Further, the
studies of Table S1 do not mention an experimental calibration
of their reference electrodes versus a RHE. This inconsistency
and lack of detail call into question the accuracy,
reproducibility, and reliability of results in the peer-reviewed
literature on water splitting, especially reported voltage
efficiency and overpotential values as well as mechanistic and
kinetic investigations at higher pH values. In light of this
observation, we raise and answer the following research
questions herein:
(1)
(i) Is there a significant efficiency difference if a pH value of
13.5 or 14 is used?
(ii) Why have different pH values for 1 M KOH at 25 °C
been reported?
(iii) Can absolute pH values of aqueous (Na/K)OH
solutions be determined?
(iv) Can reasonable pH values of aqueous (Na/K)OH
solutions (0−100 °C, 0−10 M) be provided that allow
omitting inconsistent experimental pH determinations in
electrocatalysis?
(i) Is there a signif icant ef ficiency dif ference if a pH value of
13.5 or 14 is used? Consider the following example calculation
for a HER electrocatalyst. State-of-the-art HER catalysts
require overpotentials of around 50 mV to drive the reaction.
Compared to the required potential difference of 1.23 V, these
50 mV will be responsible for an efficiency loss of around 4%
of the total water splitting process. We will assume the 50 mV
Received: August 12, 2021
Published: September 15, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
3567 ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
Figure 1. Left: Schematic energy diagram for electrochemical energy storage with the hydrogen evolution and oxidation reaction as examples
(blue). Right: pH dependency of 1 M KOH as a function of concentration and temperature. The red bar marks the pH value range reported
in the electrocatalysis literature at 25 °C and 1 M (see Table S1).
were calculated based on a pH of 13.5 using the Nernst
equation (eq 1) and a common reference electrode such as
Hg/HgO or Hg/HgSO4. If a pH of 14 is used in the Nernst
equation instead, the overpotential would be determined to be
only 20 mV instead of 50 mV, which is a reduction by 60%.
Thus, the efficiency loss from the HER would then be less than
2% instead of 4%. This example shows that the applied pH
value significantly affects the water splitting efficiency. Further,
the pH dependencies of catalytic processes such as the HER
and OER have often been used to investigate the reaction
mechanism and the kinetics of these reactions.5 In this regard,
consistent pH values are required to deduce meaningful
conclusions. Additionally, liquid junction potentials can affect
the accuracy of such potential determinations (as mentioned
by ref 6 and discussed in footnotes 16 and 17 herein).
(ii) Why have dif ferent pH values for 1 M KOH at 25 °C been
reported? The answer to this question lies in the way pH values
are measured. The device that is usually used is a pH meter
with a H+/OH− ion selective glass membrane electrode. This
electrode measures a capacitance potential as a function of the
electrolyte H+/OH− activity by adsorbing H+/OH− on the
glass membrane in contact with the analyte.7 The relation is
usually assumed to be linear and thus linear regression is used
as calibration method. Most devices utilize calibrations at pH
4, 7, and 10 with buffer solutions.8 Such a calibration is
accurate to determine pH values in a pH range of around 2−
12; however, the assumption of linearity does not hold for
strongly acidic and alkaline pH values.7 The reasons for the
deviation are limited amounts of surface active sites for OH−/
H+ adsorption and the influence of other ions on the
capacitance potential such as alkaline cations (alkali error,
which is larger for small cations).7−9 Thus, a pH 4, 7, and 10
calibration is generally not suitable to determine the pH values
of strongly alkaline and acidic solutions (for acidic solution the
deviations from linearity usually only occur at pH values below
0).8 Additionally, slight temperature variations can lead to a
significant pH shift e.g., a 5 °C difference in temperature can
lead to a difference of 0.17 in pH values (see spreadsheet in the
Supporting Information). So, if a pH measurement is
performed at room temperature (∼20−30 °C) without
temperature controlling the calibration solutions and the
analyte solution, deviations result within a range (13.7−14.1)
comparable to the ones summarized in Table S1. This
3568
Viewpoint
observation also underlines the importance that, in general,
electrochemical measurements should be performed under
temperature controlled environments. Further, stirring can
significantly affect pH measurements,7 and the lifetime of the
pH electrodes (a few years) and buffers (a few months) is
limited.7 Unfortunately, manufacturers commonly claim a
precision of 0.01 for pH measurements in a region of 0 to 14
while providing a pH 4, 7, and 10 calibration,7 which is
misleading since this claim is not correct for concentrated
alkali metal hydroxide solutions.8 These pitfalls of pH
measurements explain why we observe pH values in the
range of 13.5−14, especially in the water splitting literature.
(iii) Can absolute pH values of aqueous (Na/K)OH solutions
be determined? The pH is defined as negative decadic logarithm
of the hydrogen ion activity (−log aH+). However, as stated by
IUPAC in 2002,10 single-ion activities are an immeasurable
quantity by any thermodynamically valid method and lack a
meaningful physical definition.11 Thus, a convention is
required. The reason why single-ion activities cannot be
determined experimentally is that always single-ion activities
must be known to measure another single-ion activity (see also
answer to question (iv)). IUPAC provides a pH convention
based on the RHE and Nernst eq (eq 1) but only for solutions
with an ionic strength below 0.1 mol/kg.10 Solutions with
larger ionic strengths are not included since the IUPAC
approach relies on the Debye−Hückel theory, which is only
valid for diluted solutions (ionic strength below 0.1 mol/kg).10
Therefore, no absolute answer can be given on the pH value of
alkali metal hydroxide solutions with ionic strength above 0.1
mol/kg.
(iv) Can reasonable pH values of aqueous (Na/K)OH solutions
(0−100 °C, 0−10 M) be provided that allow omitting
inconsistent experimental pH determinations in electrocatalysis?
Even though absolute pH determinations of concentrated
solutions are impossible, accurate approximations can be
provided. The activity of hydrogen ions (aH+) can be described
by the stoichiometric activity coefficient (γOH−) and molality
(bOH−) of hydroxide using the dissociation constant (KH2O) and
activity of water (aH2O):
pH = − log10 a H+ (2)
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Viewpoint

Figure 2. pH values of 0.1, 1, and 6 mol/kg aqueous NaOH (left) and KOH (right) solutions as functions of temperature, calculated with eq
5 and based on Åkerlöf and co-workers’ activity coefficient. The dashed lines are for the common assumption that the activity coefficients of
water and Na/KOH are 1, which is equivalent to using concentrations directly for pH calculations. The spreadsheet in the Supporting
Information can be used to calculate the pH for the concentration range 0−10 M (Na/K)OH(aq) and the temperature range 0−100 °C.

Table 1. Selected pH Values at Various Concentrations and Temperaturesa

0.01 mol/kg 0.1 mol/kg 1 mol/kg 4.5 mol/kg 6 mol/kg
OH− activity coefficient of 1 (25 °C) 12 13 14 14.65 14.78
NaOH (20 °C) 12.13 13.06 14.01 14.91 15.22
NaOH (25 °C) 11.96 12.90 13.85 14.74 15.04
NaOH (70 °C) 10.76 11.69 12.63 13.48 13.75
KOH (20 °C) 12.13 13.07 14.06 15.11 15.46
KOH (25 °C) 11.96 12.90 13.89 14.94 15.28
KOH (70 °C) 10.76 11.70 12.67 13.64 13.95
a
At around 4.5 and 6 mol/kg the electric conductivities of aqueous NaOH and KOH are at their maxima, respectively. The spreadsheet in the
Supporting Information can be used to calculate the pH and other data for the concentration range 0−10 M (Na/K)OH(aq) and the temperature
range 0−100 °C.

a H+aOH− K H2Oa H2O always contain an error at higher ionic strengths (>0.1 mol/kg)
K H 2O = → a H+ = as the potential difference between the electrode processes can
a H 2O aOH− (3) only be obtained knowing single-ion activities already to either
and generally a = γb calculate the liquid junction potential or the potential of the
(4)
reference electrode (see footnotes 16−18).10,11,19−21 In the
ij a H O yz
pH = −log10(K H2O) − log10jjj 2 zzz
1940s, Åkerlö f and co-workers determined the activity
j aOH− z
k {
coefficients of aqueous NaOH and KOH experimentally (0−
70 °C, 0−17 mol/kg) through electromotive force measure-
ij a H O yz
= −log10(K H2O) − log10jjjj zz
zz
ments of RHEs.22,23 This experimental data agrees to 2% with

k OH {
2 the Debye−Hückel theory for ionic strength below 0.1 mol/kg
γ −bOH −
(5)
KH2O and aH2O are known and have been determined precisely
previously;12 bOH− is equivalent to the molality of alkaline
hydroxide for stoichiometric activity coefficients (see footnote
13 for details). However, γOH− is a single-ion activity coefficient
and cannot be determined absolutely like a single-ion activity.
One of two different approximations can be made to arrive at a
single-ion activity. The first one is to assume that the mean
activity coefficient (a measurable quantity) of the salt (e.g.,
γMOH = γM+γOH− ) is equivalent to the single-ion activities
(γMOH = γM+ = γOH−). This approximation is common and has
already been used for pH determination previously.8,14,15 It
originates from the Debye−Hückel theory in which ions with
the same absolute charge have the same activity coefficient.
The second option is to measure the electromotive force of a
cell with a RHE and to calculate aH+ using the Nernst equation
(eq 1) from the potential difference. These measurements
3569
and to other experimental data by Harned and co-workers
performed in the 0.1−4.0 mol/kg range.14 Further, this data is
adapted in important tabulated data sets such as the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,12,24 and was used as
experimental verification of extended forms of the Debye−
Hückel equation25 and the Pitzer equations.26 To the best of
our knowledge, no newer γNa/KOH measurements exist. Further,
due to the fluid amalgam separator in Åkerlöf’s cell, the liquid
junction potential should be small.27 Nevertheless, from our
point of view, the RHE approach Åkerlöf used determines γOH−
and not γMOH directly, as claimed by Åkerlöf (most probably
due to the common assumption γMOH = γM+ = γOH−) and some
liquid junction potential remains that has not and cannot be
determined absolutely. Therefore, even though this data is the
best available, it is erroneous to a certain extent. We used this
data together with eq 5 to calculate the pH values shown in
Figure 2 and Table 1. Further, the Excel spreadsheet in the
Supporting Information can be used to calculate the pH at a
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp
temperature and molality of choice (0−10 mol/kg, 0−100 °C)
together with other thermodynamic quantities such as
(γ MOH/M +/OH− , the density of the solution, the water
dissociation constant, and the activity of water). As can be
seen in Figure 2, the pH for low hydroxide concentrations
decreases when the activity coefficient is considered, and it
increases for larger concentration. To understand why the
activity coefficient at large concentrations is above one (see
Figure S1), it must be considered that the ratio of water to ions
in 6 mol/kg KOH(aq) is around 1 to 4. Therefore, only four
water molecules per ion are available for coordination.
We recommend using these values for the determination of
the pH of pure aqueous alkaline solutions. For other solutions
(e.g., with additional ions), this data can also be used to
calibrate a pH meter at high pH values. Therefore, these data
allow the pH and temperature dependency of alkaline aqueous
solutions to be explored under industrially relevant conditions
(e.g., commercial electrolyzers in 6 M KOH at 70 °C), to close
the critical gap between academic research and applications.
Nevertheless, due to the presence of liquid junction potentials,
the determination of ETD with the Nernst equation and a
common reference electrode like Hg/HgO or Hg/HgSO4
contains an error that scales with concentration and temper-
ature differences between the working electrolyte and the one
in the reference electrode. Further, at elevated temperatures,
additional factors influence ETD: (i) a changed free energy of
,e.g., the water splitting reaction, (ii) a changed prefactor ( RT =
zF
0.059 for 25 °C) value of the Nernst equation, and (iii) a
changed reference electrode potential (see ref 28 for more
information). Therefore, whenever the pH dependency of the
investigated reaction fits the one of the RHE, a RHE electrode
should be used for calibration, as elaborated previously.6,29
Additionally, alkali hydroxide solutions can adsorb CO2 from
the air, leading to lower pH values.30 This process is
comparably slow; however, if a solution is kept open for a
prolonged period of time, one can easily check with a
calibrated or uncalibrated pH electrode whether its pH has
changed by comparing the measured potential to the pH of a
fresh aqueous KOH solution.
Conclusion. The pH value of standard alkaline electrolytes
is non-trivial to determine. Applying inaccurate pH values can
result in significantly erroneous voltage efficiency values and
false conclusions in pH- and temperature-dependent electro-
catalytic investigations. To address this unsolved challenge, we
provide a method and spreadsheet to calculate the pH values
of NaOH(aq) and KOH(aq) (0−10 M at 0−100 °C) based on
experimentally determined activity coefficients. We recom-
mend using the pH data provided herein not only for precise
calculation of efficiencies and mechanistic studies in electro-
chemical processes but also in all branches of science where
accurate measure and control of pH are still critical.
J. Niklas Hausmann
Brian Traynor
Rupert J. Myers orcid.org/0000-0001-6097-2088
Matthias Driess
Prashanth W. Menezes orcid.org/0000-0002-0665-7690
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information
sı
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693.
3570
Viewpoint
Table S1, with various reported pH values for 1 M
KOH, and Figure S1, with activity coefficients plotted
against temperature and molality (PDF)
Excel spreadsheet for pH calculations (XLSX)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
Author Contributions
J.N.H. initiated the idea and developed it together with
P.W.M.; J.N.H. wrote the first draft; M.D., R.J.M., and P.W.M.
supervised the study; B.T. contributed to the worksheet for pH
calculations. All authors designed the analysis, discussed the
results, and commented on the manuscript.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Views expressed in this Viewpoint are those of the authors and
not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG,
German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence
Strategy − EXC 2008/1-390540038 − UniSysCat. J.N.H. is
indebted to the Einstein Foundation Berlin/EC2/BIG-NSE for
a Ph.D. fellowship. The research leading to this publication
benefitted from EPSRC funding under Grant No. EP/
R010161/1, and from support from the UKCRIC Coordina-
tion Node, EPSRC Grant No. EP/R017727/1, which funds
UKCRIC’s ongoing coordination. B.T. acknowledges support
from NSF CAREER #1751925.
■ REFERENCES
(1) Shao-Horn, Y.; Stephens, I. E. L.; Peng, J.; Rao, R. R.; Risch, M.;
Wei, C.; Xu, Z. J.; Huang, B. Recommended Practices and Benchmark
Activity for Hydrogen and Oxygen Electrocatalysis in Water Splitting
and Fuel Cells. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1806296.
(2) Pal, B.; Yang, S.; Ramesh, S.; Thangadurai, V.; Jose, R.
Electrolyte Selection for Supercapacitive Devices: A Critical Review.
Nanoscale Adv. 2019, 1 (10), 3807−3835.
(3) Huang, M.; Li, M.; Niu, C.; Li, Q.; Mai, L. Recent Advances in
Rational Electrode Designs for High-Performance Alkaline Recharge-
able Batteries. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29 (11), 1807847.
(4) For electrocatalytic proton-coupled reactions, the pH depend-
ency is equivalent to the term (nH+/ne−) × 0.059 V, where ne− and nH+
are the number of electrons and protons transferred in the reaction,
respectively.
(5) Giordano, L.; Han, B.; Risch, M.; Hong, W. T.; Rao, R. R.;
Stoerzinger, K. A.; Shao-Horn, Y. PH Dependence of OER Activity of
Oxides: Current and Future Perspectives. Catal. Today 2016, 262, 2−
10.
(6) Niu, S.; Li, S.; Du, Y.; Han, X.; Xu, P. How to Reliably Report
the Overpotential of an Electrocatalyst. ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5 (4),
1083−1087.
(7) Cheng, K. L.; Zhu, D. M. On Calibration of PH Meters. Sensors
2005, 5 (4−5), 209−219.
(8) Traynor, B.; Uvegi, H.; Olivetti, E.; Lothenbach, B.; Myers, R. J.
Methodology for PH Measurement in High Alkali Cementitious
Systems. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 135, 106122.
(9) Cheng, K. L. Explanation of Misleading Nernst Slope by
Boltzmann Equation. Microchem. J. 1998, 59 (3), 457−461.
(10) Buck, R. P.; Rondinini, S.; Covington, A. K.; Baucke, F. G. K.;
Brett, C. M. A.; Camoes, M. F.; Milton, M. J. T.; Mussini, T.;
Naumann, R.; Pratt, K. W.; Spitzer, P.; Wilson, G. S. Measurement of
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571
ACS Energy Letters http://pubs.acs.org/journal/aelccp Viewpoint

PH. Definition, Standards, and Procedures (IUPAC Recommenda- Active Oxidic Iron(III) Phase from Corrosion of Intermetallic Iron
tions 2002). Pure Appl. Chem. 2002, 74 (11), 2169−2200. Silicide to Master Efficient Electrocatalytic Water Oxidation and
(11) Bates, R. G. Determination of pH; Wiley: New York, 1973. Selective Oxygenation of 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural. Adv. Mater. 2021,
(12) Rumble, J. R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 100th 33 (27), 2008823.
ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2019. (29) Jerkiewicz, G. Standard and Reversible Hydrogen Electrodes:
(13) Activity coefficients can be divided into stoichiometric and Theory, Design, Operation, and Applications. ACS Catal. 2020, 10
actual activity coefficients (see ref 31, page 391, for details). A (15), 8409−8417.
stoichiometric activity coefficient yields the activity of a species (30) Sanz-Pérez, E. S.; Murdock, C. R.; Didas, S. A.; Jones, C. W.
(single ion or salt pair) when multiplied with the stoichiometric Direct Capture of CO 2 from Ambient Air. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116
amount of salt added to the solution. An actual activity coefficient (19), 11840−11876.
yields the activity when multiplied with the number of actual species (31) Wright, M. R. An Introduction to Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions;
in solution (e.g., dissociated species). Therefore, for an actual activity Wiley: Chichester, 2007.
coefficient the dissociation constant must be considered, while for a
stoichiometric one it must not be considered.
(14) Licht, S. PH Measurement in Concentrated Alkaline Solutions.
Anal. Chem. 1985, 57 (2), 514−519.
(15) Einerhand, R. E. F.; Visscher, W. H. M.; Barendrecht, E. PH
Measurement in Strong KOH Solutions with a Bismuth Electrode.
Electrochim. Acta 1989, 34 (3), 345−353.
(16) A liquid junction potential occurs when two solutions with
different ions or concentrations are in contact with each other (e.g., at
the frit of a reference electrode separating the reference electrode and
the electrolyte in the working compartment; see ref 11, page 31, for
details). Liquid junction potentials can only be calculated when the
single-ion activities are known.
(17) Instead of using a separator between the electrolyte of the
reference electrode and the electrolyte of the RHE, the reference
electrode can be directly in the RHE electrolyte (Harned cell, see ref
10 for details). Under such circumstances a negligible liquid junction
potential is present; however, the potential of the reference electrode
must be calculated with the activities of the ions in the RHE solution,
which cannot be done correctly using the Debye−Hückel theory for
solutions with large ionic strengths.
(18) We note here that experimental single-ion activity measure-
ments with corrections for the liquid junction have been claimed but
are controversially discussed.19,20 Further, theoretical approaches are
under investigation.21
(19) Wilczek-Vera, G.; Rodil, E.; Vera, J. H. A Complete Discussion
of the Rationale Supporting the Experimental Determination of
Individual Ionic Activities. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2006, 244 (1), 33−45.
(20) Malatesta, F. Activity Coefficients of Ions in Sodium Halide
Solutions: Critical Remarks. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2010, 295 (2), 244−
248.
(21) Sun, L.; Liang, X.; von Solms, N.; Kontogeorgis, G. M. Analysis
of Some Electrolyte Models Including Their Ability to Predict the
Activity Coefficients of Individual Ions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59
(25), 11790−11809.
(22) Åkerlöf, G.; Kegeles, G. Thermodynamics of Concentrated
Aqueous Solutions of Sodium Hydroxide. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1940, 62
(3), 620−640.
(23) Åkerlöf, G. C.; Bender, P. Thermodynamics of Aqueous
Solutions of Potassium Hydroxide. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1948, 70 (7),
2366−2369.
(24) The source cited in the handbook is a table by Hamer and Wu
which is ultimately based on Åkerlöf’s data.
(25) Helgeson, H. C.; Kirkham, D. H.; Flowers, G. C. Theoretical
Prediction of the Thermodynamic Behavior of Aqueous Electrolytes
by High Pressures and Temperatures; IV, Calculation of Activity
Coefficients, Osmotic Coefficients, and Apparent Molal and Standard
and Relative Partial Molal Properties to 600 °C and 5 KB. Am. J. Sci.
1981, 281 (10), 1249−1516.
(26) Li, Z.; Pitzer, K. S. Thermodynamics of Aqueous KOH over the
Full Range to Saturation and to 573 K. J. Solution Chem. 1996, 25 (9),
813−823.
(27) Hamer, W. J.; Wu, Y.-C. Osmotic Coefficients and Mean
Activity Coefficients of Uni Univalent Electrolytes in Water at 25 °C.
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1972, 1 (4), 1047−1100.
(28) Hausmann, J. N.; Beltrán-Suito, R.; Mebs, S.; Hlukhyy, V.;
Fässler, T. F.; Dau, H.; Driess, M.; Menezes, P. W. Evolving Highly

3571 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01693
ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571