Reaction rates, comparison factors affecting

For industrial reactors, the effectiveness factor (i]) is used to provide a measure of the actual reaction rate, as affected by operating conditions, in comparison to the intrinsic reaction kinetics. Assuming that the trickle bed reactor shown in Fig. 4 is operated so that interphase transport of one of the reactants, steps 2 or 8 above, is controlling. 

The basic condition observed in studies of this type consists in that all the values taken for comparison ought to be obtained under exactly identical conditions, and the structure of the substrate or solvent ought to be the only variable factor affecting the rate of the catalytic reaction. This is why it is very difficult, and for catalytic reactions even impossible, to compare data provided by different authors. 

In the previous section, it was pointed out that electrocatalysis is akin to heterogeneous catalysis. The essential differences are the effect of the electric field on the reaction rate and the presence of nonreacting species (ions of electrolyte, solvent), which may also affect the reaction rate. The following sections are concerned with (i) elucidation of the effect of the electric field on the reaction rate (n) role of adsorption which is somewhat more complicated in electrocatalysis by the fact that the adsorbed species are not only reactants, intermediates, or products, but also the solvent or ions of the solution (in) conditions under which a comparison of the electrocatalytic activity of various substrates for a particular reaction should be made (iv) the role of electronic and geometric factors of the electrocatalyst. 

Fast progress of platinum computational elctrochemistry is stimulated by electrocatalysis, and tlte studies of CO adsorption predominate. Accumulated experience is extremely useful for modeling the reversible adsorption at the interface, but today the latter looks like a tiny brook in the vicinity of computational mainstream. The closest layer going from electrocatalysis is theoretical/ computational prediction of electrocatalytic activity in hydrogen reactions, °° as it requires the modeling of hydrogen adatoms. The main problem in this case is comparison with experiment, because a lot of factors besides adlayer stmcture affect the observed reaction rates. 

Structural features, lattice defects, surface chemistry, and metal impurities simultaneously affect the oxidation behavior of carbon nanomaterials, making a differentiation between the individual contributions challenging, if not impossible. It is, therefore, important to note that the measured activation energies, reaction rate constants, and frequency factors of carbon nanomaterials only reflect the oxidation behavior of the sample as a whole, but not that of a particular nanostructure. A direct comparison between different carbon nanostructures, or similar nanostructures produced by different synthesis techniques, is thus extremely difficult. 

However, as for reactions in non-functional micelles, sec , cannot be compared directly with second-order rate constants in water, whose dimensions are, conventionally, M /sec. But this comparison can be made provided that one specifies the volume element of reaction, which can be taken to be the molar volume of the micelles, or the assumed molar volume of the micellar Stern layer. This choice is an arbitrary one, but the volumes differ by factors of ca. 2 [107,108], so it does not materially affect the conclusions. The rate constants in the micelle for dephosphorylation, deacylation and nucleophilic substitution by a functional hydroxyethyl surfactant are similar to those in water [99], and similar results have been observed for dephosphorylation using functional surfactants with imidazole and oximate [106,107]. Similar results have been obtained by Fornasier and Tonalleto [108] for deacylation of carboxylic esters by a variety of functional comicelles. 

---