English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In their "Comment on 'Negative Deviations from the Debye-Hückel Limiting Law for High-Charge Polyvalent Electrolytes: Are They Real?' " Biver and Malatesta, citing my respective paper, argue that my analysis of experimental data of their group is wrong and so is my conclusion that negative deviations observed by them are not physically real. Here I rebut their arguments and explain why their rejection of my work is unjustified, and why those authors do not in any way prove me wrong. The core of my study and conclusion remains intact: Negative deviations in the case of high-charge electrolytes with | z + z - | &gt; 3 do not always happen, and so far, such observed deviations are not convincingly supported by theory.

Reply to “Comment on ‘Negative Deviations from the Debye–Hückel Limiting Law for High-Charge Polyvalent Electrolytes: Are They Real?’ ”