Diffuse layer at the interface

Equation (5.7) would be an enormous simplification if it is all that is required to describe the membrane dipole potential but a number of non-trivial complications need to be included in any such analysis. The solvent environment for example, is often dealt with as a mean field or in a continuum manner. But the relative permittivity (or dielectric constant) (sr) cannot be considered to possess the same value throughout the multiphase system represented by a membrane in an aqueous medium. The permittivity profile has been measured to vary from about 78.5 in the bulk aqueous phase to 20-30 in the diffuse layer at the interface then to around 2 in the membrane interior. Furthermore, in light of the discussion above concerning the complexity of the membrane-solution interface region, it should be born in mind that there are certainly more than 3 such distinct phases ... 

Refer to section 2.2.3 and to figures 2.15 and 2.16 in section 1.2.4.2 for the qualitative description of potential profiles in an electrochemical cell, including the different contributions to the voltage across an electrochemical system with a current flowing. In addition, remember that the description of the concentration or potential profiles is on the spatial scale of the diffusion layers and not on the double-layers scale (see section 3.3.1). In particular, while the potential profile is continuous on the scale of the double-layer dimensions, it shows discontinuities on the scale of the diffusion layers at the interfaces. 

D is the diffusion coefficient of surfactant 6 is the thickness of diffusion layer at the interface h is the thickness of adsorption layer at T oo... 

Actually, it is recognized that two different mechanisms may be involved in the above process. One is related to the reaction of a first deposited metal layer with chalcogen molecules diffusing through the double layer at the interface. The other is related to the precipitation of metal ions on the electrode during the reduction of sulfur. In the first case, after a monolayer of the compound has been plated, the deposition proceeds further according to the second mechanism. However, several factors affect the mechanism of the process, hence the corresponding composition and quality of the produced films. These factors are associated mainly to the com-plexation effect of the metal ions by the solvent, probable adsorption of electrolyte anions on the electrode surface, and solvent electrolysis. 

To evaluate the contribution of the SHG active oriented cation complexes to the ISE potential, the SHG responses were analyzed on the basis of a space-charge model [30,31]. This model, which was proposed to explain the permselectivity behavior of electrically neutral ionophore-based liquid membranes, assumes that a space charge region exists at the membrane boundary the primary function of lipophilic ionophores is to solubilize cations in the boundary region of the membrane, whereas hydrophilic counteranions are excluded from the membrane phase. Theoretical treatments of this model reported so far were essentially based on the assumption of a double-diffuse layer at the organic-aqueous solution interface and used a description of the diffuse double layer based on the classical Gouy-Chapman theory [31,34]. 

The comparison of I —> N and N —> I may also be explained by the buffered pH in the diffusion layer and leads to an interesting comparison between a process under kinetic control versus one under thermodynamic control. Because the bulk solution in process N —> I favors formation of the ionized species, a much larger quantity of drug could be dissolved in the N —> I solvent if the dissolution process were allowed to reach equilibrium. However, the dissolution rate will be controlled by the solubility in the diffusion layer accordingly, faster dissolution of the salt in the buffered diffusion layer (process I—>N) would be expected. In comparing N—>1 and N —> N, or I —> N and I —> I, the pH of the diffusion layer is identical in each set, and the differences in dissolution rate must be explained either by the size of the diffusion layer or by the concentration gradient of drug between the diffusion and the bulk solution. It is probably safe to assume that a diffusion layer at a different pH than that of the bulk solution is thinner than a diffusion layer at the same pH because of the acid-base interaction at the interface. In addition, when the bulk solution is at a different pH than that of the diffusion layer, the bulk solution will act as a sink and Cg can be eliminated from Eqs. (1), (3), and (4). Both a decrease in the h and Cg terms in Eqs. (1), (3), and (4) favor faster dissolution in processes N —> I and I —> N as opposed to N —> N and I —> I, respectively. 

In the presence of EOF, the observed velocity is due to the contribution of electrophoretic and electroosmotic migration, which can be represented by vectors directed either in the same or in opposite direction, depending on the sign of the charge of the analytes and on the direction of EOF, which depends on the sign of the zeta potential at the plane of share between the immobilized and the diffuse region of the electric double layer at the interface between the capillary wall and the electrolyte solution. Consequently, is expressed as... 

In addition to the interphase potential difference V there exists another potential difference of fundamental importance in the theory of the electrical properties of colloids namely the electro-kinetic potential, of Freundlich. As we shall note in subsequent sections the electrokinetic potential is a calculated value based upon certain assumptions for the potential difference between the aqueous bulk phase and some apparently immobile part of the boundary layer at the interface. Thus represents a part of V but there is no method yet available for determining how far we must penetrate into the boundary layer before the potential has risen to the value of the electrokinetic potential whether in fact f represents part of, all or more than the diffuse boundary layer. It is clear from the above diagram that bears no relation to V, the former may be in fact either of the same or opposite sign, a conclusion experimentally verified by Freundlich and Rona. 

The FRAP data described above report molecular self diffusion in the adsorbed layers at the interfaces of thin films. The measurements are sensitive to the strength of interactions... 

Reaction diffusion is a physicochemical process resulting in the occurrence of a continuous solid compound layer at the interface between initial substances. The term reaction diffusion reflects the most important feature of the layer-formation mechanism, namely, that the layer growth is due to a continuous alternation of the two consecutive steps ... 

Different diffusional contributions of the components of a chemical compound to the growth process of its layer at the interface between phases A and B should not be regarded as a manifestation or result of the Kirkendall effect since the fact that these contributions are in general different became known far before discovering this effect, the essence of which consists in different diffusivities of the components of a substitutional solid solution. 

A schematic diagram to illustrate the growth process of the ArBs layer at the interface between the ApBq and B phases at the expense of diffusion of component A is shown in Fig. 4.2. If the ApBq compound has a considerable range of homogeneity, then the content of component A in the initial phase ApBq will be assumed to be constant and equal to the lower limit of this range according to the equilibrium phase diagram of the A-B binary system. 

V.I. Dybkov. Reaction diffusion in heterogeneous binary systems. Part 1. Growth of the chemical compound layers at the interface between two elementary substances one compound layer// J.Mater.Sci.- 1986.- V.21, No.9.- P.3078-3084. 

The difference in diffusivities of the components in a growing chemical compound layer is often connected, especially in the literature on physics and metallurgy and especially in relation to intermetallics, with the Kirken-dall effect. From historical and scientific viewpoints, in many cases this does not seem to be sufficiently substantiated. In particular, this is so in the case of formation of chemical compound layers at the interface of initial substances. A brief consideration was presented to show that different dif-fusional contributions of the components to the growth process of a chemical compound layer can hardly be regarded as a manifestation or result of the Kirkendall effect. 

Beard(Z.) has developed a useful mathematical model of a convection dryer for studying the use of energy in a tenter frame. The model is based on a set of simultaneous differential equations which can be solved numerically to obtain fabric temperature and macroscopic moisture contents along the length of the dryer. The model considers the fabric as a moist layer of fabric sandwiched between two dry layers of fabric. Thermal energy is convected from the dryer to the external surface of the dry layer and then from the exterior of the fabric to the interface between the wet and dry layers. At the interface, the water is evaporated and diffuses as vapor through the dry layer to the surrounding hot make-up air. Assumptions in the model include ... 

The diffusion parameter controls mass transport in a thin layer at the interface and so its relation to other parameters can be stated as1... 

---