When approaching the analysis of disorders of acid-base balance, physical chemists, physiologists, and clinicians, tend to focus on different aspects of the relevant phenomenology. The physical chemist focuses on a quantitative understanding of proton hydration and aqueous proton transfer reactions that alter the acidity of a given solution. The physiologist focuses on molecular, cellular, and whole organ transport processes that modulate the acidity of a given body fluid compartment. The clinician emphasizes the diagnosis, clinical causes, and most appropriate treatment of acid-base disturbances. Historically, two different conceptual frameworks have evolved among clinicians and physiologists for interpreting acid-base phenomena. The traditional or bicarbonate-centered framework relies quantitatively on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, whereas the Stewart or strong ion approach utilizes either the original Stewart equation or its simplified version derived by Constable. In this review, the concepts underlying the bicarbonate-centered and Stewart formulations are analyzed in detail, emphasizing the differences in how each approach characterizes acid-base phenomenology at the molecular level, tissue level, and in the clinical realm. A quantitative comparison of the equations that are currently used in the literature to calculate H(+) concentration ([H(+)]) is included to clear up some of the misconceptions that currently exist in this area. Our analysis demonstrates that while the principle of electroneutrality plays a central role in the strong ion formulation, electroneutrality mechanistically does not dictate a specific [H(+)], and the strong ion and bicarbonate-centered approaches are quantitatively identical even in the presence of nonbicarbonate buffers. Finally, our analysis indicates that the bicarbonate-centered approach utilizing the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation is a mechanistic formulation that reflects the underlying acid-base phenomenology.