Diffusion domain approach

The Diffusion Domain Approach The so-called diffusion domain approach was first proposed by Amatore et al. [36], and has proved highly useful in several theoretically based reports on this subject to model the diffusion current at those randomly distributed spherical micro- (or nano-) particle arrays [35, 37-39]. 

Davies and Compton simulated a regular array of microelectrodes, varying the diffusion domain approach, as illustrated in Figure 6.20. 

The electrode surface was assumed to contain N electroactive metal or metal oxide centers, respectively, which can be not only uniformly but also (mimicking more realistic experimental conditions) randomly distributed an example is the results of atomic force microscopy (AFM) studies on microparticle electrodes [53]. Here, the diffusion domain approach (as described in Section 6.3.2.2.1) has been employed that is, the electrode surface is assumed to be an arrangement of independent diffusion domains of radius Fq. If all particles are of the same radius, rj, but are distributed in a random manner, then a distribution of diffusion domains with different domain radii, ro, follows. The local position-dependent coverage is given by T. The electroactive microparticle flat disks of the radius rj are located in the center of the respective diffusion domain cylinder. The simulated (linear sweep voltammetric) reaction follows a one-electron transfer, and species B is stripped from the electrode surface into the solution, forming A, or ... 

Godino, N., Borrise, X., Munoz, F.X. et al (2009) Mass transport to nanoelectrode arrays and limitations of the diffusion domain approach theory and experiment. Journal of Physical Chemistry C,113, 11119-11125. 

Fig. 12.14 The diffusion domain approach to (a) a square lattice and (b) a hexagonal lattice of UMDEs of radius a and a centre-to-centre separation of /...

The scan rate dependence on peak potential makes it dear that, at high microscopic coverage, a near-linear dependence of p on ln(v) applies, with the slope approaching RT/2F. At low 6, however, a hemispherical diffusion becomes predominant. With higher scan rates, the diffusion layer will become thinner and the diffusion regime more planar. Adjacent diffusion domains will then overlap with each other. 

An evaluation of the retardation effects of surfactants on the steady velocity of a single drop (or bubble) under the influence of gravity has been made by Levich (L3) and extended recently by Newman (Nl). A further generalization to the domain of flow around an ensemble of many drops or bubbles in the presence of surfactants has been completed most recently by Waslo and Gal-Or (Wl). The terminal velocity of the ensemble is expressed in terms of the dispersed-phase holdup fraction and reduces to Levich s solution for a single particle when approaches zero. The basic theoretical principles governing these retardation effects will be demonstrated here for the case of a single drop or bubble. Thermodynamically, this is a case where coupling effects between the diffusion of surfactants (first-order tensorial transfer) and viscous flow (second-order tensorial transfer) takes place. Subject to the Curie principle, it demonstrates that this retardation effect occurs on a nonisotropic interface. Therefore, it is necessary to express the concentration of surfactants T, as it varies from point to point on the interface, in terms of the coordinates of the interface, i.e.,... 

Two numerical methods have been used for the solution of the spray equation. In the first method, i.e., the full spray equation method 543 544 the full distribution function / is found approximately by subdividing the domain of coordinates accessible to the droplets, including their physical positions, velocities, sizes, and temperatures, into computational cells and keeping a value of / in each cell. The computational cells are fixed in time as in an Eulerian fluid dynamics calculation, and derivatives off are approximated by taking finite differences of the cell values. This approach suffersfrom two principal drawbacks (a) large numerical diffusion and dispersion... 

---