Codex @codex  0

The branch of chemistry concerned with identifying substances in a sample and measuring their quantities or concentrations. A bicinchoninic acid assay, for example, estimates protein content through an optical measurement.

Biochemistry studies the chemistry of living systems: what their molecules are, how they recognize one another, and how their chemical reactions support the organization of a biological cell. It connects biology to chemical kinetics, stoichiometry and thermodynamics. A useful biochemical explanation follows both material and energy: which substrate becomes which reaction product, what sets the reaction rate, and how the transformation is driven.

Consider three connected examples. The stereochemistry of a sugar helps determine how it interacts with an enzyme's active site; the molecular formula alone cannot describe that recognition. Selective enzymes then direct material through metabolism, while ATP can participate in energy coupling that drives otherwise unfavourable transformations. These are different questions about the same working system, rather than three names for its energy supply.^[ref]

This viewpoint is useful because it separates possible explanations for a stopped process. Missing substrate, inactive enzyme, depleted ATP and accumulated reaction product call for different interventions. Studying a cell-free extract can isolate some of those causes while leaving a substantial chemical reaction network intact.

The chemical potential measures how a thermodynamic potential changes when matter is added under specified constraints. It plays for matter exchange the role that temperature plays for heat exchange: a difference supplies a direction, and equality characterizes thermodynamic equilibrium when the corresponding exchange is allowed. This connects diffusion, phase coexistence and chemical equilibrium through one quantity.

For a single component, the particle convention iswhere $U$ is internal energy, $N$ counts particles, $S$ is entropy and $V$ is volume. This partial derivative holds entropy and volume fixed; it measures an incremental change rather than the average energy per particle. See David Tong, Statistical Physics, section 1.4.

In chemistry the molar convention instead uses amount of substance $n$, measured in moles:Here $G$ is Gibbs free energy, $T$ is temperature, $p$ is pressure and $N_{\mathrm{A}}$ is the Avogadro constant. The units are $\mathrm{J}$ per particle versus $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. For several chemical species, define each chemical potential by varying only its own particle count or amount of substance, with all other components' counts or amounts fixed. Many texts use $\mu$ for either convention, so the units and the variable being differentiated must identify it.

For a simple compressible system with variable component inventories, the fundamental differentials areThey describe changes between states in thermodynamic equilibrium with only pressure-volume work. If every component inventory is fixed, the sums vanish. The Gibbs free energy form follows by differentiating $G=U-TS+pV$ and using $d{N}_i=N_{\mathrm{A}}d{n}_i$; this is why the two definitions describe the same chemical potential in different units.

A chemical potential can be negative. Holding entropy fixed while adding matter need not increase internal energy; Tong explains this explicitly for a classical ideal gas in Statistical Physics, section 2.2.4. Its absolute sign also depends on the reference energy: replacing $U$ by $U+{ϵ}_{0}N$ shifts ${\mu }_{\mathrm{particle}}$ by ${ϵ}_0$. A common reference shift cancels from differences for the same chemical species, which are what determine exchange. Thus “energy cost” means a signed increment, not an always positive amount that must be supplied.

An electrolyte is a conducting medium in which mobile ions carry electric current, according to IUPAC Gold Book: electrolyte. In introductory chemistry, a substance that yields ions when dissolved in water is also called an electrolyte. Both usages point to the same mechanism: an electric field gives mobile cations and anions directed drift velocities.

Mobility matters as much as the presence of electric charge. In a simple ideal model of solid sodium chloride, ions are confined to their sites and do not carry a sustained transport electric current. Molten sodium chloride has mobile ions; dissolved sodium chloride gives mobile ${\mathrm{Na}}^{+}$ and ${\mathrm{Cl}}^{-}$ ions in water. Real solids can have some ionic transport through imperfections; the immobile-solid picture is an introductory limit, rather than a claim that all solids are perfect insulators.

A strong electrolyte yields essentially all ions from the dissolved substance, whereas a weak electrolyte yields only a fraction under the specified conditions. Dissolved sodium chloride is a strong electrolyte. Sucrose is a nonelectrolyte: it dissolves as neutral molecules, so dissolving something does not automatically create mobile ions. Water's own small population of hydronium and hydroxide remains possible. See 11.2 Electrolytes (§11.2: strong, weak, and nonelectrolytes) and Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, §11.4, Table 11.3: sucrose and sodium chloride.

Acetic acid is a weak electrolyte and a weak acid. In water, some neutral acetic acid molecules transfer a proton to water, producing hydronium and the negatively charged partner:Both sides have net electric charge zero. At chemical equilibrium, neutral acetic acid coexists with these ions; the fraction converted depends on the conditions. Electrolyte strength describes this extent of ion production, while concentration describes how much substance is present per specified quantity of chemical solution. A dilute strong electrolyte can contain fewer ions per volume than a concentrated weak electrolyte. Neither the words strong and weak nor a conductivity comparison alone specifies concentration.

Now specify an electrolytic cell with a positive anode on the left, a negative cathode on the right, and an approximately uniform electric field pointing right in the bulk electrolyte. With a steady external source and neglecting diffusion and convection, positive cations drift right toward the negative cathode; negative anions drift left toward the positive anode. Yet both populations contribute a rightward conventional current! For number densities $n_{+},n_{-}$ and drift velocities ${\mathbf{v}}_{+},{\mathbf{v}}_{-}$, the transport current density isThe product of electric charge and velocity determines conventional current: for the anion, both the charge and its rightward velocity component are negative, making its rightward contribution positive. This is the same sign rule used for electron conventional current. It follows directly from the existing charge carrier formula.

For an independent numerical example, stipulate $n_{+}=n_{-}=10^{25}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $v_{+,x}=2\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, and $v_{-,x}=-3\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. With the exact elementary charge $e=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$, the contributions areEqual number densities of singly charged cations and anions give zero bulk charge density, while their motion gives nonzero current density. This is why a neutral electrolyte can conduct. These numbers are chosen toy inputs, not measurements of sodium chloride; maintaining sustained cell electric current also requires suitable electrode reactions. Blocking electrodes can instead lead to charge accumulation and decay of the electric current.

An electrolyte connects the microscopic motion of ions to observable electrical conductivity. A counterion-only model keeps just the mobile counterions needed to oppose a fixed electric charge; Poisson-Boltzmann equations use ideal Boltzmann distributions to model their equilibrium distributions, rather than the drift example above.

An ion is a chemical atom or a group of chemical atoms with a nonzero net electric charge. A positive ion is a cation; a negative ion is an anion. The whole entity carries the electric charge: a hydronium ion is a group of four chemical atoms with net charge $+e$. This definition agrees with ^[ref].

For an ordinary ion containing only atomic nuclei and electrons, let $N_p$ count all its protons and $N_e$ all its electrons. Each proton contributes the elementary charge $+e$, each electron contributes $-e$, and neutrons contribute zero. ThereforeThe signed integer $z$ is the net electric charge number. Removing an electron increases $z$ by one; adding an electron decreases $z$ by one. Changing the electron count leaves the atomic number, and therefore the identity of the chemical element, unchanged.

For example, a neutral sodium chemical atom has $11$ protons and $11$ electrons. Its cation ${\mathrm{Na}}^{+}$ still has $11$ protons, but only $10$ electrons, so $q=(11-10)e=+e$. A neutral chlorine chemical atom has $17$ protons and $17$ electrons; its anion ${\mathrm{Cl}}^{-}$ has $17$ protons and $18$ electrons, so $q=(17-18)e=-e$. These are particle inventories, not pictures of atomic orbitals. See 2.6 Ionic and Molecular Compounds (§2.6: ions and ionic compounds).

One sodium chloride formula unit accounts for one ${\mathrm{Na}}^{+}$ cation and one ${\mathrm{Cl}}^{-}$ anion, whose net electric charges sum to zero. Ordinary solid sodium chloride is an extended arrangement of ions, rather than discrete $\mathrm{NaCl}$ molecules. This is a useful distinction: a neutral material can contain charged constituents, and its chemical formula tells us their ratio without claiming that each pair is a separate molecule.

Ion bookkeeping connects chemistry to electric current: moving ions can transport electric charge, while stationary ions cannot supply a transport current density. In electrochemistry, both signs of ions can contribute to the same conventional current. An ion opposing a fixed electric charge is called a counterion.

Her institutional profile identifies her as a chemist whose research areas include electrochemistry and theoretical chemistry.

A physicist and chemist whose investigation of radioactivity joined sensitive measurement to chemical separation. She moved from Warsaw to Paris to study, later becoming a professor of physics. The Curie ionization-current measurement shows the experimental craft behind the work: balancing a tiny electric current against a calibrated electric charge. She shared the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics and received the 1911 prize in chemistry.^[ref]

A chemist whose route into experimental research began with a bookbinding apprenticeship (1805–1812). He became a laboratory assistant at the Royal Institution in 1813, its laboratory director in 1825, and Fullerian Professor of chemistry from 1833 to 1867.^[ref]

The number of reactive connections available on a monomer under a specified polymerization chemistry. One-functional units can terminate chains, two-functional units can build chains, and higher functionality can produce branching and networks.

Use ionic electron counting, counting each ordinary donor atom once and keeping ligand charge distinct from denticity. A is 16-electron, B is 14-electron and C is 16-electron, so none is an 18-electron complex under this convention.

A contains a modified, monoanionic PNP pincer: the exocyclic double bond and altered pyridine-ring bond pattern in the drawing matter. Its two phosphines and its central N donor provide six electrons altogether, while neutral N${}_2$ provides two. Neutrality then gives Co(I), $d^8$, and $8+6+2=16$. Treating the modified pincer as a neutral intact pyridine ligand would incorrectly produce Co(0) and a 17-electron count. A four-coordinate approximately square planar molecular geometry in a $d^8$ complex can leave the strongly sigma-antibonding orbital empty and be stable at 16 electrons. The underlying modified-pincer chemistry has been examined using structure, spectroscopy and electronic-structure calculations.^[ref]

B has a neutral tertiary amine donor at the centre of its tripod and three anionic amido arms. Their combined charge is $-3$, so Re is Re(III), $d^4$. The four N donors give eight electrons and N${}_2$ gives two: $4+8+2=14$. Such an electron count is not inherently unexpected in an amido-supported complex: strong amido pi donation and the imposed five-coordinate geometry alter the orbital energies, and the empty orbitals are not nine equivalent slots that must all be filled. Steric protection and chelation also help stabilize this coordinatively restricted structure. The 14-electron figure uses the usual two-electron ionic count for each amido donor; pi bonding should not be appended to it inconsistently.

C has an anionic acyl carbon donor and a neutral phosphine in the chelate, together with two neutral PMe${}_3$ donors. Thus Co(I), $d^8$, receives $2+2+4=8$ ligand electrons, giving $8+8=16$. This is again a reasonable four-coordinate $d^8$ structure. The acyl C=O is part of a carbon-bound acyl ligand, not an additional free CO donor.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck regarded geology and the study of living bodies as connected parts of a terrestrial natural philosophy. His Hydrogéologie by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Zoological Philosophy by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck sought lawful explanations of the Earth's changing surface and of changing organic organization. The connection was stronger than the commonplace that organisms live on land and in water: fluids and material transformations were supposed to make both the surface of the globe and living structures intelligible over immense periods.

One important starting point was the replacement of an explanation by exceptional events with a sustained investigation of ordinary causes and their accumulated consequences. Moving water could erode, transport and redeposit material. Over a sufficiently long interval, relatively small actions could change the relation between sea and land. This supplied a way of understanding a surface whose present arrangement need not be its original one. The explanatory appeal was to continuing physical operations plus duration, not to a modern theory of moving lithospheric plates. Calling his programme a fully formed modern uniformitarianism would obscure its distinctive mechanisms and assumptions.^[ref]

A related model operated within the organism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck distinguished containing tissues from contained fluids, with moving fluids altering the structures through which they passed. More sustained or differently directed activity could strengthen or develop a part, while changing circumstances altered an animal's habits and the employment of its organs. The visible result was to be explained through a material history, rather than through a separate intention directly constructing each useful feature. This is why reducing his whole programme to the slogan that an animal wished for a new organ is misleading. Need, behaviour, fluid movement and organization occupied different places in the proposed causal sequence.^[ref]

There were also chemical connections between living and nonliving nature. In the 1809 work he argued that organisms formed their own compound substances and that their remains supplied materials subsequently transformed and simplified outside life. He expressly connected this discussion with Hydrogéologie by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Geology was consequently not a wholly independent history of an inert stage on which organisms later appeared. Organisms helped produce the materials of that stage; those materials, their environment and their transformations in turn conditioned living activity.^[ref]

The unity of explanation must nevertheless be stated carefully. Sharing physical and chemical causes did not mean that a crystal and an animal were indistinguishable. His comparison of inorganic and living bodies emphasized the organized, heterogeneous, bounded individual, with internal nutrition, development and eventual death. An inorganic aggregate did not acquire those capacities merely by becoming large. The special arrangement and circulation of matter therefore mattered to the explanation of life even when the causes acting on that arrangement were natural. There is no contradiction in claiming lawful material causes while also identifying organizational differences which require explanation.^[ref]

Nor should his chemistry be silently translated into modern biochemistry. His fluid and heat-based explanations, his conjectures about the formation and subsequent simplification of materials, and his accounts of the origin of simple living forms belonged to a particular early nineteenth-century system. To show why they fitted together is not to show that each is now accepted. Modern observations that organisms alter soils and sediments support some broad connections between life and the Earth's surface, but they do not establish his claim that all compound inorganic materials ultimately derived from living activity.

Finally, the integration helps explain his account of changing species. If environments have histories, their inhabitants encounter changing conditions. If habits and organization can respond, and acquired changes can persist through heredity, stable-looking forms need not be permanently fixed. His additional tendency toward more complex organization and the modifying effects of circumstances were not identical processes. The natural unity he sought was a framework for explaining both continuity of causes and diversity of outcomes. It was neither Darwinian natural selection avant la lettre nor a merely metaphorical comparison between rocks and animals. The conviction followed from a connected programme of material causation, long time and the historical production of structure.

Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Joseph Priestley independently prepared and investigated the gas now called oxygen; Antoine Lavoisier was central to interpreting it within a new account of combustion and chemical composition. Assigning a unique discoverer requires deciding whether discovery means first preparation, first public report, recognition of a distinct kind of gas, or a successful theoretical interpretation. The historical controversy is largely about why one of these achievements should be privileged over the others.

Carl Wilhelm Scheele's investigations, generally dated to the early 1770s, preceded publication of Chemical Treatise on Air and Fire by Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1777. His work distinguished the component that sustained burning from the remainder of ordinary air. He obtained the active component through several chemical preparations, including heating suitable substances, and interpreted the results in terms of phlogiston. Delayed publication matters to public priority, but it does not show that the experimental work had not occurred. Equally, a publication date alone does not establish the precise date of every earlier trial.^[ref]

Joseph Priestley's 1775 account is unusually revealing because it records hesitation and revision. On 1 August 1774 he heated red mercury(II) oxide with a large burning lens and collected the released gas. A candle burned particularly strongly in it; later trials involving animals and comparison with nitric oxide helped him distinguish its properties from ordinary air. He initially lacked a settled understanding of what he had obtained. Calling the product dephlogisticated air eventually made it intelligible within his own framework: it had an unusually great capacity to accept the phlogiston supposedly released in burning and animal breathing.^[ref]

The modern chemical equation,is a useful reconstruction, but it must not be passed off as Joseph Priestley's own explanation. In modern terms, heating decomposes mercury(II) oxide into mercury and molecular oxygen. The eighteenth-century experimenter instead worked with such categories as calces and differently modified airs. The material operation can be recognized across the change in theory while the meaning of its product remains historically contested.

Antoine Lavoisier made a different contribution. His programme tracked what entered and left substances in calcination and combustion, placing gases within quantitative material balances. In the mercury experiment described in Elements of Chemistry by Antoine Lavoisier, a retort communicated with an enclosed supply of air over mercury. Prolonged heating formed a red calx and diminished the enclosed air. Stronger heating of the recovered calx released an especially combustion-supporting gas; adding it back to the residual air restored the properties of the original mixture. The persuasive feature was the linked decomposition and reconstruction, not just a single spectacular flame.^[ref]

That sequence supported the claim that air was a mixture and that calcination involved combining a metal with part of it. A metal could gain mass because material entered it from the air, without requiring an invisible substance to leave with anomalous properties. Conservation of mass made the weighing scale a constraint on the explanation. However, Antoine Lavoisier's entire system was not modern chemistry. He treated caloric as an explanatory principle and associated the newly named oxygen with the formation of all chemical acids. The latter universal claim is false: hydrochloric acid is an chemical acid whose solute, hydrogen chloride, contains hydrogen and chlorine but no oxygen. This concrete counterexample prevents us from defining discovery as possession of today's complete theory.^[ref]

There are consequently several legitimate allocations of credit. An investigator concerned with earliest preparation may emphasize Carl Wilhelm Scheele; one concerned with the well-documented 1774 experiment and its rapid communication may emphasize Joseph Priestley; one concerned with the explanatory reconstruction of combustion may emphasize Antoine Lavoisier. The last achievement depended on experimental results that the others had produced. Correct interpretation was neither a substitute for preparing the material nor an achievement wholly independent of communication between investigators.

Historians disagree because their accounts embody different pictures of scientific change. A simple accumulation story can make discovery look like identifying one additional item in a ready-made list of chemical elements. A conceptual-change story emphasizes that the list and its criteria were themselves changing: oxygen was not just another variety of modified air in the new chemistry. National priority narratives and the dramatic reputation of the Chemical Revolution can further encourage a single heroic winner. Yet replacing that winner with a collective label is insufficient unless the different experimental and theoretical contributions are explained.

The most defensible answer distributes credit while specifying the achievement. Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Joseph Priestley deserve independent experimental discovery credit; Antoine Lavoisier deserves central credit for the chemical interpretation and reorganization that gave oxygen its place in a new system. Discovery was a sequence of preparation, discrimination, communication and reinterpretation, rather than one instantaneous encounter with a theory-free fact.

The University of Bristol tribute, 25 May 2023 identifies him as a chemistry educator who served as Director of Outreach and School Teacher Fellow in its School of Chemistry; it also records his full name and life dates.

Portrait: Tim Harrison, identified in the University of Bristol tribute.

The course catalogue below covers undergraduate degrees, integrated master's degrees, taught master's programmes and research master's programmes in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, engineering and medicine. Course names and examination stages follow the University's published directories and departmental teaching information.^[ref] Graduate programmes and historical examination holdings are distinguished from one another: a current course listing does not establish which past papers are held.

An instrument that compares quantities through their mechanical effects, historically central to quantitative chemistry. Material accounting requires including all relevant substances, not merely weighing a visible solid.