Biomedical subjects

L Ogborn

Publications and source records attributed to L Ogborn.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1992

Electrode recovery potential.

In some instances the same electrodes are used for stimulation and then for recording a bioelectric event immediately after the stimulus. However, after the current pulse there remains an electrode potential that decays quasiexponentially. We have designated this falling potential the electrode-recovery potential. This study investigated the recovery potentials of single electrodes of rhodium, stainless steel, platinum and platinum-iridium in contact with 0.9% saline at room temperature (25 degrees C) over a current density ranging from 0.1 to 100 mA/cm2 using a constant-current pulse. In all cases, with increasing current density, there was a decrease in the time for the electrode potential to fall to one half of the immediate post-stimulus value. Above about 20 mA/cm2 the decrease in recovery time was smooth with increasing current density. Below 20 mA/cm2, the recovery time was slightly irregular. The shortest recovery times were for platinum and platinum-iridium. The largest decrease in recovery time with increasing current density was for stainless steel, which decreased 10 fold from 0.1 to 100 mA/cm2. The recovery time for rhodium decreased about three-and-one half fold over the same current density range. It was found that the waveform of the recovery potential is not a simple exponential because the Warburg and Faradic components of the electrode-electrolyte interface are current-density dependent. In general, for all current densities studied (0.1-100 mA/cm2), there was a sudden initial fall in electrode potential with cessation of current flow, followed by a very gradual nonexponential decrease in potential.

Electric Conductivity↗

PubMed1992

Faradic resistance of the electrode/electrolyte interface.

A new method is used to measure the direct-current (Faradic) resistance of a single electrode/electrolyte interface. The method employs a constant-current pulse and a potential-sensing electrode. By choosing a sufficiently long pulse duration, the voltage between the test and potential-sensing electrode exhibits a three-phase response. In the steady-state phase, the voltage measured is equal to the current flowing through the electrode Faradic resistance and the resistance of the electrolyte between the test and potential-sensing electrode. By measuring this latter resistance with a high-frequency sinusoidal alternating current, the voltage drop in the electrolyte is calculated and subtracted from the voltage measured between the test and potential-sensing electrode, thereby allowing calculation of the Faradic resistance. By plotting the reciprocal of the Faradic resistance against current density and fitting the data points to a third-order polynomial, it is possible to determine the zero-current density (Faradic) resistance. This technique was used to determine the Faradic resistance of electrodes (0.1 cm2) of stainless-steel, platinum, platinum-iridium and rhodium in 0.9 per cent NaCl at 25 degrees. The zero current Faradic resistance is lowest for platinum (30.3 k omega), slightly higher for platinum-iridium (47.6k omega), much higher for rhodium (111k omega) and highest for type 316 stainless-steel (345k omega). In all cases, the Faradic resistance decreases dramatically with increasing current density.

Electric Impedance↗

PubMed1992

A new method for measuring the Faradic resistance of a single electrode-electrolyte interface.

A new method is described for measuring the Faradic resistance of a single electrode-electrolyte interface. The method employs a test (monopolar) electrode, a potential-sensing electrode and a large reference (indifferent) electrode, along with a constant-current source capable of providing a step function of current. The method was used to measure the Faradic resistance of a 0.1 cm2 platinum electrode in contact with saline (p = 150 ohm-cm) at room temperature. It was found that for both a positive and negative current pulse, the Faradic resistance decreased almost hyperbolically with increasing current density. When the reciprocal of the Faradic resistance (Gf) was plotted versus current density and the data were fit to a polynomial curve, the results showed that for the positive pulse Gf = 0.009 + 0.05J - 0.0001J2; (SEE = 0.117); for the negative pulse, Gf = 0.007 + 0.067J - 0.0001J2; (SEE = 0.028); where Gf is in millisiemens and J is in mA/cm2 for this 0.1 cm2 electrode. These relationships permit estimating the Faradic resistance (Rf) for zero current density. For the positive pulse, Rf = 111 kilohms and for the negative pulse Rf = 143 kilohms. The method is applicable to the measurement of the Faradic resistance of a wide variety of metal electrodes.

Electric Conductivity↗