Interfacial charging behavior

Figure 15. Effect of interfacial rate constants on PMC behavior and on the photocurrent (/0 = 1 cm-2), (a) Fast interfacial charge-transferrate, and (b) low interfacial charge-transfer rate.

The theoretical approach by Samec based on the ion-free compact layer model established that the true apparent transfer coefficient is obtained after correction for concentration polarization effect [1] [see Eq. (14)]. Subsequent studies by Samec and coworkers on the ferricyanide-Fc system provided values of a smaller than the expected 0.5. Preliminary attempts to rationalize this behavior were based on defining effective interfacial charges and separation distance between reactants [79]. The inconclusive trends reported in these studies were ascribed to complications arising from ion pairing of the ferro/ferricyanide ions. Later analysis of the same system appeared to show that k i is... 

In studying interfacial electrochemical behavior, especially in aqueous electrolytes, a variation of the temperature is not a common means of experimentation. When a temperature dependence is investigated, the temperature range is usually limited to 0-80°C. This corresponds to a temperature variation on the absolute temperature scale of less than 30%, a value that compares poorly with other areas of interfacial studies such as surface science where the temperature can easily be changed by several hundred K. This "deficiency" in electrochemical studies is commonly believed to be compensated by the unique ability of electrochemistry to vary the electrode potential and thus, in case of a charge transfer controlled reaction, to vary the energy barrier at the interface. There exist, however, a number of examples where this situation is obviously not so. 

We begin with a discussion of the most common minerals present in Earth s crust, soils, and troposphere, as well as some less common minerals that contain common environmental contaminants. Following this is (1) a discussion of the nature of environmentally important solid surfaces before and after reaction with aqueous solutions, including their charging behavior as a function of solution pH (2) the nature of the electrical double layer and how it is altered by changes in the type of solid present and the ionic strength and pH of the solution in contact with the solid and (3) dissolution, precipitation, and sorption processes relevant to environmental interfacial chemistry. We finish with a discussion of some of the factors affecting chemical reactivity at mineral/aqueous solution interfaces. 

Double Layer Interactions and Interfacial Charge. Schulman et al (42) have proposed that the phase continuity can be controlled readily by interfacial charge. If the concentration of the counterions for the ionic surfactant is higher and the diffuse electrical double layer at the interface is compressed, water-in-oil microemulsions are formed. If the concentration of the counterions is sufficiently decreased to produce a charge at the oil-water interface, the system presumably inverts to an oil-in-water type microemulsion. It was also proposed that for the droplets of spherical shape, the resulting microemulsions are isotropic and exhibit Newtonian flow behavior with one diffused band in X-ray diffraction pattern. Moreover, for droplets of cylindrical shape, the resulting microemulsions are optically anisotropic and non-Newtonian flow behavior with two di-fused bands in X-ray diffraction (9). The concept of molecular interactions at the oil-water interface for the formation of microemulsions was further extended by Prince (49). Prince (50) also discussed the differences in solubilization in micellar and microemulsion systems. 

Figures 10 and 11 display both the interfacial tension and electrophoretic mobility data for Huntington Beach crude as a function of NaOH concentration in aqueous solutions containing 1% NaCl. It is to be noted that as in the case of the Long Beach crude, the minimum in interfacial tension corresponds to the maximum in electrophoretic mobility and hence interfacial charge. It should be further stated that this behavior is the same for both the equilibrated system (Figure 10) and for the non-equilibrated system (Figure 11). In the latter case, the interfacial tension reported here is the initial value at a given NaOH concentration. It is observed that the minimum interfacial tension for the pre-equilibrated system lies at about 0.06% NaOH whereas the minimum for the non-equilibrated sample is between 0.003% and 0.005% NaOH concentration. Furthermore, the minimum interfacial tension in this case is below 0.001 dynes/cm.

---