Comments on the paper entitled ‘The formulation and modelling of the anodic dissolution of zinc through adsorbed intermediates’by G.G. Láng, and G. Horányi [J. Electroanal. Chem. 583 (2005) 148–154]

Reply to “Comments on the paper entitled ‘The formulation and modelling of the anodic dissolution of zinc through adsorbed intermediates’” by C. Cachet et al.

“…[1] there is a characteristic difference between the reaction schemes criticized by us and those reported in most of the papers which were considered as a support for the views of the authors of Refs. [3,4,1].…”

“…[3,4]. However, we are very sorry to see that two fundamental critical points raised in [1] are far from being in relevance with the literature cited in [1] and the content of our paper. These two points are as follows:…”

“…(i) The Authors of the ''Comments'' [1] claim that their schemes (model) fundamentally does not differ from those reported by a great number of other researchers during the last 40-50 years. It stands in Ref.…”

“…' We analysed most of the articles cited above [5][6][7][8][9][10][11], and we arrived at the conclusion that in contrast to the statement of the Authors of Ref. [1] there is a characteristic difference between the reaction schemes criticized by us and those reported in most of the papers which were considered as a support for the views of the authors of Refs. [3,4,1].…”

“…(ii) It is quite surprising that the Authors of the ''Comments'' [1] assume that we are not aware of the very fact that in steady state the overall process should be Zn ! Zn 2þ sol þ 2 e. This was clearly stressed in our paper in connection with the remarks to the EQCM response [2, p. 151].…”