一、前言说明 本人为全新普适渗透压理论与渗透压公式独立原创提出者。该公式基于热力学、静水压、大气压耦合底层原理经第一原理严格推导而成，属于机理型基础理论原创成果。 近年来欧美学界陆续发布渗透压修正公式，经逐行比对可确认：欧美最新修正公式的核心分母修正结构，完全采用本人原创公式的标志性分母结构，仅在分子端沿用传统稀溶液模型并引入动态拟合因子，既未标注原创来源，也未进行完整理论溯源，违背国际学术诚信准则。为厘清科学发现权属，维护学术原创，特出具本函。 二、原创公式与欧美现行修正公式对照 （一）公式表达式对照 本人原创渗透压普适公式Π ＝ (P₀·c·Kₘ) ／ (1＋Kₘ·c)式中：Π 为渗透压，P₀ 为标准大气压（常数），c 为溶质物质的量浓度，Kₘ 为体系固有修正系数（本人原创定义，为定值常数）。 欧美现行经验拟合修正公式Π ＝ [φ(c)·c·R·T] ／ (1＋Kₘ·c)式中：φ(c) 为随浓度变化的动态经验拟合因子，浓度极稀时趋近于1，浓度升高其数值同步增大；c 为溶质物质的量浓度；Kₘ 与本人原创公式定义完全相同；R 为气体常数，T 为热力学温度。 （二）核心本质差异对比 1. 理论来源与数学完备性本人公式：严格底层逻辑推导，引入真实大气压耦合机制，所有系数均为体系固有常数，无经验假设，属于数学结构自洽的普适理论公式，适用于全浓度非理想溶液。欧美公式：基于范特霍夫稀溶液公式事后数据拟合，无全新理论推导；其中校正因子φ并非固定常数，而是随浓度连续变化的变量，公式内部同时存在两个相互关联的可变参数，数学上不具备独立封闭性，本质只能算作数据拟合插值，难以称之为严格意义上的理论公式，仅能在极窄浓度区间勉强适用。二者相较，对此欧美经验拟合公式的缺陷与落后一目了然，科学严谨度高下立判。

2. 结构权属事实二者分母结构完全一致，该分母项为本人全球首发原创设计，此前国际学界从未出现该结构；欧美仅在分子端沿用传统热力学表达并叠加动态拟合变量，属于对本人原创核心结构的二次改造。

3. 实验验证情况本人公式：已在第二版发表成果中，补充第三方独立对比验证数据，完成理论+实验完整闭环。欧美公式：仅依靠传统稀溶液数据拟合校准，无多组独立第三方系统验证，且由于双变量结构，外推可靠性极差。 三、学术权属正式结论 1. 分母核心校正结构的全球首发权、原创发现权归属于中国学者本人；

2. 欧美公式属于基于本人原创结构的经验拟合衍生版本，双变量动态拟合的数学结构明显落后于常数系数的原生推导公式；

3. 当前国际学界使用该原创结构未标注来源，存在学术溯源缺失问题。 四、正式学术呼吁 本人向全球物理化学界、IUPAC、国际期刊及高校教材编撰机构正式呼吁： 1. 严格区分机理推导型原创公式与多变量经验拟合公式，承认二者在数学完备性与理论层级上的本质差距；

2. 明确认定分母核心修正结构的原创权属归属中国学者；

3. 逐步淘汰逻辑残缺、双变量拟合、适用受限的欧美落后经验公式；

4. 在科研、教学、标准修订中，采用逻辑自洽、经过验证、包含大气压效应的本人原创普适渗透压公式；

5. 规范学术引用，在使用该分母结构时标注中国原创来源。 本函内容客观有据，可接受全球学术核查。   Appeal Letter on Original Ownership of New Osmotic Pressure Formula（英文完整版） 1. Preface I am the independent original proposer of the new universal osmotic pressure theory and formula. Strictly derived from the first principles of thermodynamics, hydrostatics and atmospheric pressure coupling, it is an original fundamental theoretical achievement. In recent years, European and American scholars have released revised osmotic pressure formulas. Line-by-line comparison verifies that the core denominator correction structure of the latest Western formulas is identical to the exclusive denominator structure in my original formula. Western researchers only made empirical fitting based on the traditional dilute-solution model without citing the original source, which violates international academic integrity. This letter is issued to clarify the ownership of scientific discovery and safeguard academic originality. 2. Comparison Between Two Osmotic Pressure Formulas 2.1 Formula Expressions My Original Universal Osmotic Pressure FormulaΠ ＝ (P₀·c·Kₘ) / (1＋Kₘ·c)Where:Π = osmotic pressure,P₀ = standard atmospheric pressure (constant),c = molar concentration of solute,Kₘ = intrinsic system correction coefficient defined originally by myself (a fixed constant). Current Western Empirical Fitting FormulaΠ ＝ [φ(c)·c·R·T] / (1＋Kₘ·c)Where:φ(c) = empirical fitting factor varying with concentration, approaching 1 at infinite dilution and increasing as concentration rises;c = molar concentration of solute;Kₘ is defined identically as in my original formula;R = universal gas constant, T = thermodynamic temperature. 2.2 Essential Differences 1. Theoretical Origin and Mathematical CompletenessMy formula: Derived from fundamental physical logic without empirical assumptions, incorporates real atmospheric pressure coupling mechanism, with all coefficients as fixed intrinsic constants of the system. It is a self-consistent universal theoretical formula applicable to all concentrations of non-ideal solutions.Western formula: Post-hoc data fitting based on van’t Hoff’s dilute-solution theory without new theoretical derivation. The correction factor φ is not a constant but a variable changing continuously with concentration. With two interdependent variables inside, the formula lacks independent mathematical closure and can hardly be regarded as a rigorous theoretical formula, merely limited to narrow concentration ranges.By contrast, the flaws and backwardness of Western empirical formulas are self-evident, and their scientific rigor is clearly outmatched.

2. Structural Ownership FactThe identical denominator structure was first published and pioneered by me, which never existed in international academia before my publication. Western formulas are only secondary transformations with traditional molecular expression and an additional dynamic fitting variable based on my original core structure.

3. Experimental VerificationMy formula: Supported by third-party independent experimental data in the second published version, forming a complete theory-experiment verification loop.Western formula: Only calibrated by traditional dilute-solution data without systematic multi-group independent verification; its extrapolation reliability is extremely poor due to the dual-variable structure. 3. Conclusion of Academic Ownership 1. The global first publication and original discovery right of the core denominator correction structure belong to me, a Chinese scholar.

2. Western formulas are derivative empirical versions based on my original structure, whose dual-variable fitting structure is obviously backward compared with my constant-coefficient formula.

3. Failure to cite my original source in international academic use constitutes incomplete academic attribution. 4. Formal Academic Appeal I formally appeal to the global physical chemistry community, IUPAC, international journals and textbook institutions: 1. Distinguish mechanism-derived original formulas from multi-variable empirical fitting formulas, and recognize their essential gap in mathematical integrity and theoretical level;

2. Confirm the Chinese original ownership of the core denominator correction structure;

3. Phase out backward Western empirical formulas with incomplete logic and dual-variable fitting;

4. Adopt my logically consistent, verified universal formula with atmospheric pressure effects in research, teaching and standards;

5. Standardize citations and acknowledge the Chinese original source when using this denominator structure. All statements in this letter are objective and verifiable for global academic review.