Interfacial reactions modeling

Tjandra et al. (1998) have proposed an interfacial reaction model for the kinetics of the reaction between 1-bromo octane and sodium phenoxide to give 1-phenoxyoctane in a nonionic microemulsion. In this model the microemulsion is assumed to consist of the aqueous phase and the interface is covered by a monolayer of surfactant molecules. It is thus possible to assess the interfacial area from the concentration of the surfactant in the microemulsion medium. 

The enhanced rate expressions for regimes 3 and 4 have been presented (48) and can be appHed (49,50) when one phase consists of a pure reactant, for example in the saponification of an ester. However, it should be noted that in the more general case where component C in equation 19 is transferred from one inert solvent (A) to another (B), an enhancement of the mass-transfer coefficient in the B-rich phase has the effect of moving the controlling mass-transfer resistance to the A-rich phase, in accordance with equation 17. Resistance in both Hquid phases is taken into account in a detailed model (51) which is apphcable to the reversible reactions involved in metal extraction. This model, which can accommodate the case of interfacial reaction, has been successfully compared with rate data from the Hterature (51). 

Empirical kinetics are useful if they allow us to develop chemical models of interfacial reactions from which we can design experimental conditions of synthesis to obtain thick films of conducting polymers having properties tailored for specific applications. Even when those properties are electrochemical, the coated electrode has to be extracted from the solution of synthesis, rinsed, and then immersed in a new solution in which the electrochemical properties are studied. So only the polymer attached to the electrode after it is rinsed is useful for applications. Only this polymer has to be considered as the final product of the electrochemical reaction of synthesis from the point of view of polymeric applications. 

Figure 12. Model of interfacial reactions proposed for the electrogeneration of polypyrrole from aqueous and acetonitrile solutions. (Reprinted from T. F. Otero and J. Rodriguez, Electrochim. Acta 39, 245, 1994, Figs. 2, 7. Copyright 1997. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier Science.)...

Not much effort has been made, except for the Tafel studies, to establish the empirical kinetics and models of interfacial reactions to obtain thick polymeric films (>100 nm) of industrial interest from different monomers. However, this is much more than the few kinetic studies performed until now to understand the mechanism of chemically initiated polymerization. Electrochemical models still have an advantage in obtaining priority in the industrial production of tailored materials. 

The ITIES with an adsorbed monolayer of surfactant has been studied as a model system of the interface between microphases in a bicontinuous microemulsion [39]. This latter system has important applications in electrochemical synthesis and catalysis [88-92]. Quantitative measurements of the kinetics of electrochemical processes in microemulsions are difficult to perform directly, due to uncertainties in the area over which the organic and aqueous reactants contact. The SECM feedback mode allowed the rate of catalytic reduction of tra 5-l,2-dibromocyclohexane in benzonitrile by the Co(I) form of vitamin B12, generated electrochemically in an aqueous phase to be measured as a function of interfacial potential drop and adsorbed surfactants [39]. It was found that the reaction at the ITIES could not be interpreted as a simple second-order process. In the absence of surfactant at the ITIES the overall rate of the interfacial reaction was virtually independent of the potential drop across the interface and a similar rate constant was obtained when a cationic surfactant (didodecyldimethylammonium bromide) was adsorbed at the ITIES. In contrast a threefold decrease in the rate constant was observed when an anionic surfactant (dihexadecyl phosphate) was used. 

The interfacial barrier theory is illustrated in Fig. 15A. Since transport does not control the dissolution rate, the solute concentration falls precipitously from the surface value, cs, to the bulk value, cb, over an infinitesimal distance. The interfacial barrier model is probably applicable when the dissolution rate is limited by a condensed film absorbed at the solid-liquid interface this gives rise to a high activation energy barrier to the surface reaction, so that kR kj. Reaction-controlled dissolution is somewhat rare for organic compounds. Examples include the dissolution of gallstones, which consist mostly of cholesterol,... 

Hydrolysis. NMR results show that TBT carboxylates undergo fast chemical exchange. Even the interfacial reaction between TBT carboxylates and chloride is shown to be extremely fast. The hydrolysis is thus not likely to be a rate determining step. Since the diffusivity of water in the matrix is expected to be much greater than that of TBTO, a hydrolytic equilibrium between the tributyltin carboxylate polymer and TBTO will always exist. As the mobile species produced diffuses out, the hydrolysis proceeds at a concentration-dependent rate. Godbee and Joy have developed a model to describe a similar situation in predicting the leacha-bility of radionuclides from cementitious grouts (15). Based on their equation, the rate of release of tin from the surface is ... 

The preparation of hydroxy-terminated styrylpyridine has been described previously (18). The model esters and carbonate were prepared by an interfacial reaction. The scheme for the reaction was as follows ... 

The term on the left side of the equation is the accumulation term, which accounts for the change in the total amount of species iheld in phase /c within a differential control volume. This term is assumed to be zero for all of the sandwich models discussed in this section because they are at steady state. The first term on the right side of the equation keeps track of the material that enters or leaves the control volume by mass transport. The remaining three terms account for material that is gained or lost due to chemical reactions. The first summation includes all electron-transfer reactions that occur at the interface between phase k and the electronically conducting phase (denoted as phase 1). The second summation accounts for all other interfacial reactions that do not include electron transfer, and the final term accounts for homogeneous reactions in phase k. 

Divisek et al. presented a similar two-phase, two-dimensional model of DMFC. Two-phase flow and capillary effects in backing layers were considered using a quantitatively different but qualitatively similar function of capillary pressure vs liquid saturation. In practice, this capillary pressure function must be experimentally obtained for realistic DMFC backing materials in a methanol solution. Note that methanol in the anode solution significantly alters the interfacial tension characteristics. In addition, Divisek et al. developed detailed, multistep reaction models for both ORR and methanol oxidation as well as used the Stefan—Maxwell formulation for gas diffusion. Murgia et al. described a one-dimensional, two-phase, multicomponent steady-state model based on phenomenological transport equations for the catalyst layer, diffusion layer, and polymer membrane for a liquid-feed DMFC. 

For electrochemists whose principal objective is analysis of constituents in solution, the path is straighter and the hill less steep. The reaction model often used is a redox reaction in which the interfacial reaction is simply electron transfer, and surface chemical reactions among radicals can be neglected. The electrode is regarded as stable during the reaction and is not intended to take any chemical part in it. The function of the surface is not electrocatalytic, it is simply to be a source and sink of electrons, the energy of which may be controlled by variation of the electrode potential. 

An alternative approach is to make the simplification that the rate of chemical reaction is fast compared to the rate of diffusion that is, the membrane diffusion is rate controlling. This approximation is a good one for most coupled transport processes and can be easily verified by showing that flux is inversely proportional to membrane thickness. If interfacial reaction rates were rate controlling, the flux would be constant and independent of membrane thickness. Making the assumption that chemical equilibrium is reached at the membrane interfaces allows the coupled transport process to be modeled easily [9], The process is... 

In the interfacial barrier model of dissolution it is assumed that the reaction at the solid-liquid interface is not rapid due to the high free energy of activation requirement and therefore the reaction becomes the rate-limiting step for the dissolution process (Figure 5.1), thus, drug dissolution is considered as a reaction-limited process for the interfacial barrier model. Although the diffusion layer model enjoys widespread acceptance since it provides a rather simplistic interpretation of dissolution with a well-defined mathematical description, the interfacial barrier model is not widely used because of the lack of a physically-based mathematical description. 

Realistic analysis of fixed-bed reactor experiments requires calculation of interfacial states. Laboratory reactors are typically much shorter than full-scale units and operate with smaller axial velocities, producing significant departures of the iiiterfacial states from the measurable values in the mainstream fluid and consequent difficulties in establishing catalytic reaction models. Interfacial temperatures and partial pressures were calculated with jn and jo- and used in estimating reaction model parameters, in a landmark paper by Yoshida. Ramaswami. and Hougen (1962). Here we give an updated analysis of interfacial states in fixed-bed reactor operations for improved treatment of catalytic reaction data. 

For analysis of fixed-bed reactor data, Eqs. (3.3-5) and (3.3-23) should be used to calculate interfacial states at representative points along the reactor. Use of these corrected interfacial states, and the intraparticle states of Section 3.4, will 2dlow improved estimates of reaction model parameters by the methods of Chapters 6 and 7. 

Monolayer and multilayer thin films are technologically important materials that potentially provide well-defined molecular architectures for the detailed study of interfacial electron transfer. Perhaps the most important attribute of these heterogeneous systems is the ease with which their molecular architecture can be synthetically varied to tailor the properties of the ensemble. Assemblies incorporating specifically designed structures can, in principle, meet the needs of a variety of technological applications and be used as models for understanding fundamental interfacial reaction mechanisms. In fact, molecular assemblies are nearly ideal laboratories for the fundamental study of electron-transfer reactions at interfaces. In this chapter, the use of monolayer and multilayer assemblies to probe fundamental questions regarding electron transfer in surface-confined molecular assemblies will be addressed. 

Knipping E. M. and Dabdub D. (2002) Modeling CI2 formation from aqueous NaCl particles evidence for interfacial reactions and importance of CI2 decomposition in alkahne solution. J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi 10.1029/2001JD000867. 

Model accounted for external phase mass transfer resistance, the interfacial reaction resistance, diffusion within the emulsion globule as well as leakage of the internal phase due to membrane breakage. 

---