Josef Hanzal wrote: > In this way even if you charge and discharge the capacitor often > enough, there is still some DC voltage across the solution, causing > necessarily some plating effect (also called polarization). Am I missing something? Two details seem to me stunningly obvious: Firstly, that as indeed you want to avoid DC voltage across the solution, you would ensure this by providing a "blocking" capacitor between the electrode and the measuring circuit; a polycarbonate of several microfarads if you could afford the space, or a tantalum electrolytic configured so that was forward biassed throughout the waveform. If it became necessary to compensate for the reactance of the blocking capacitor, a second capacitor could be introduced between electrode and AC source: Rref C C VAC >----/\/\/----||-----+------||-----> Metering/ DAC | +-----------+ | | | | | (~~~+~~+~~~) = ( I I ) solution Gnd ( I I ) (__________) ^ ^ electrodes The second point which I have assumed in the diagram, is that the reference electrode is grounded, though if another metallic part of the solution path was also grounded, this could itself lead to electrolytic problems. Commonly, some metallic part of the container already IS grounded, and the "sense" electrode would be deliberately chosen to be the same material. While I realise this is not "set in stone", I am always uncomfortable to have large ungrounded objects (such as containers of liquid) connected to small-signal circuitry. If it MUST be so, surely the signal circuitry should be "floating" from isolation devices and shielded in common with the "sense" electrode, by the reference electrode? I am visualising something like a pipe through which the liquid passes, forming the reference electrode, and containing a central sense electrode which connects fairly directly with the measurement circuit, itself encased in a shield attached to the outer reference "pipe". Something similar would seem to be in order whether the shield was grounded or isolated. Just some musings, Cheers, Paul B.