Irreversible transfer

The temperature of the working substance must never differ more than infinitesimally from that of any body with which it comes in contact, otherwise irreversible transfer of heat by conduction or radiation occurs. 

FIG. 25 Typical DPSC data for the oxidation of 10 mM bromide to bromine (forward step upper solid curve) and the collection of electrogenerated Br2 (reverse step lower solid curve) at a 25 pm diameter disk UME in aqueous 0.5 M sulfuric acid, at a distance of 2.8 pm from the interface with DCE. The period of the initial (generation) potential step was 10 ms. The upper dashed line is the theoretical response for the forward step at the defined tip-interface separation, with a diffusion coefficient for Br of 1.8 x 10 cm s . The remaining dashed lines are the reverse transients for irreversible transfer of Br2 (diffusion coefficient 9.4 x 10 cm s ) with various interfacial first-order rate constants, k, marked on the plot. (Reprinted from Ref. 34. Copyright 1997 American Chemical Society.)... 

M sulfuric acid to air [34]. As discussed above, for the aqueous-DCE interface, the rate of this irreversible transfer process (with the air phase acting as a sink) was limited only by diffusion of Bt2 in the aqueous phase. A lower limit for the interfacial transfer rate constant of 0.5 cm s was found [34]. 

In the last reaction, pyruvate kinase catalyzes the physiologically irreversible transfer of the phosphoryl group from PEP to ADP to form ATP and pyruvate. 

To shift this border to the right, one should facilitate the exciplex recombination transforming the reversible transfer into irreversible transfer. Rehm and Weller chose this very way assuming that Wr = const and is larger than k/Kecl everywhere. This is a very astonishing and unacceptable assumption since Wr (AGr) should also follow FEG law, which is common for any transfer rate. Since the energy of the excited reactant... 

This equation accounts for the decay of the excited state with the rate 1/t a ignored by equation (3.91). The difference between these equations retains when they turn to the auxiliary equations for IET and DET by appending diffusional terms to the rhs of them. However, the usage of the auxiliary equations in these theories is also different one of them is designed for the memory function of IET and another, for the time-dependent rate constant of DET. In spite of all these differences, the results of DET and IET were shown to be identical in the case of irreversible transfer [124],... 

Although this relationship looks similar to Eq. (3.257) for irreversible transfer, the Stern-Volmer constant of the latter (ko = k,) is different from Kf, which accounts for the reversibility of ionization during the geminate stage. The difference between Kg = R (0) and its irreversible analog K from (3.372) is worthy of special investigation based on the analysis of pair distribution functions obeying Eqs. (3.359). 

From Figure 3.50 we see how the reverse transfer to the excited state reduces cpp(a) in relationship to tp(cj), and how small (pa(cr) is compared to the value 1, which (p7( cr) takes in the case of irreversible transfer. However, the ratio of these quantities (3.393) remains unchanged at any rate of reverse transfer. This is a fraction of the free ions from the total amount of irrevocable products of reversible ionization. Each portion of photogenerated RIPs adds some free ions... 

This behavior, inherent to the IET description of either reversible or irreversible transfer, can be eliminated using modified integral encounter theory (MET) [41,44], or an improved superposition approximation [51,126],... 

A similar correction to IET is inherent in MET as well. For irreversible transfer (Ay, P 0), the quenching kinetics represented by P A (t) was obtained in Ref. 203 with the original program designed to solve the differential form of IET and MET equations. As seen from Figure 3.84, the difference between the curves representing these solutions is insignificant within the validity limits for IET established in Ref. 39... 

In the semilogarithm plot of Figure 3.88 the concentration dependence k(c) is represented by the S-like curves related to different theories. The main one is that of DET, which is expected to be exact for the target problem for independently moving point quenchers. This is also true for all equivalent theories of irreversible transfer (CA, MPK1, Vogelsang theory [243,244]). 

---