Section III

Attunes. Salts of Amines. Polyfunctional Confounds which contain one or more Amino-Groups. 

The majority of the simple aliphatic amines and aromatic side-chain amines (e.g. benzylamine) are liquids with powerful odours resembling but not identical with that of anunonia. They dissolve in water yielding alkaline solutions. Simple heterocyclic amines are also soluble in water. All compounds of these types dissolve readily in dilute mineral acids. 

Except for some polyfunctional aromatic amino-compounds (e.g. aminophenols, some amino-acids, phenylenediamines) aromatic amines are not soluble in water. Most dissolve in dilute hydrochloric acid, but some weak bases, e.g. nitroanilines, diphenylamines and polyhalogeno-anilines dissolve only in concentrated acids. A few aromatic amines (e.g. naphthylamines) dissolve in concentrated hydrochloric acid and then slowly precipitate as their sparingly soluble hydrochlorides. In all cases of doubt as to the solubility of a suspected amine in hydrochloric acid, a little of the filtered solution should be treated with an excess of alkali, when the amine (if insoluble in water) should be regenerated as an oil or solid. Amino-phenols and amino-acids are amphoteric substances (see pages 14-76). 

General test—the action of nitrous acid see diagram opposite. 

Limitations of the test. Under the conditions used for the test, a clear distinction between the various types of amine is not always obtained. For example, some primary aliphatic amines (e.g. methylamine) do not react normally with nitrous acid to yield the corresponding alcohol and nitrogen, and in any case unless the test is carried out very carefully a steady evolution of nitrous fumes from the reaction mixture may be erroneously reported as nitrogen. Again, some conunon secondary aliphatic amines give water- 

---

It was made clear in Chapter II that the surface tension is a definite and accurately measurable property of the interface between two liquid phases. Moreover, its value is very rapidly established in pure substances of ordinary viscosity dynamic methods indicate that a normal surface tension is established within a millisecond and probably sooner [1], In this chapter it is thus appropriate to discuss the thermodynamic basis for surface tension and to develop equations for the surface tension of single- and multiple-component systems. We begin with thermodynamics and structure of single-component interfaces and expand our discussion to solutions in Sections III-4 and III-5. 

The theoretical treatments of Section III-2B have been used to calculate interfacial tensions of solutions using suitable interaction potential functions. Thus Gubbins and co-workers [88] report a molecular dynamics calculation of the surface tension of a solution of A and B molecules obeying Eq. III-46 with o,bb/ o,aa = 0.4 and... 

We have considered the surface tension behavior of several types of systems, and now it is desirable to discuss in slightly more detail the very important case of aqueous mixtures. If the surface tensions of the separate pure liquids differ appreciably, as in the case of alcohol-water mixtures, then the addition of small amounts of the second component generally results in a marked decrease in surface tension from that of the pure water. The case of ethanol and water is shown in Fig. III-9c. As seen in Section III-5, this effect may be accounted for in terms of selective adsorption of the alcohol at the interface. Dilute aqueous solutions of organic substances can be treated with a semiempirical equation attributed to von Szyszkowski [89,90]... 

The type of behavior shown by the ethanol-water system reaches an extreme in the case of higher-molecular-weight solutes of the polar-nonpolar type, such as, soaps and detergents [91]. As illustrated in Fig. Ul-9e, the decrease in surface tension now takes place at very low concentrations sometimes showing a point of abrupt change in slope in a y/C plot [92]. The surface tension becomes essentially constant beyond a certain concentration identified with micelle formation (see Section XIII-5). The lines in Fig. III-9e are fits to Eq. III-57. The authors combined this analysis with the Gibbs equation (Section III-SB) to obtain the surface excess of surfactant and an alcohol cosurfactant. 

As in Section III-2A, it is convenient to suppose the two bulk phases, a and /3, to be uniform up to an arbitrary dividing plane S, as illustrated in Fig. Ill-10. We restrict ourselves to plane surfaces so that C and C2 are zero, and the condition of equilibrium does not impose any particular location for S. As before, one computes the various extensive quantities on this basis and compares them with the values for the system as a whole. Any excess or deficiency is then attributed to the surface region. 

Both the Monte Carlo and the molecular dynamics methods (see Section III-2B) have been used to obtain theoretical density-versus-depth profiles for a hypothetical liquid-vapor interface. Rice and co-workers (see Refs. 72 and 121) have found that density along the normal to the surface tends to be a... 

The preceding evidence for orientation at the interface plus the considerations given in Section III-3 make it clear that the polar end is directed toward the water and the hydrocarbon tails toward the air. On the other hand, the evidence from the study of the Gibbs monolayers (Section III-7) was that the smaller molecules tended to lie flat on the surface. It will be seen that the orientation... 

The film pressure is defined as the difference between the surface tension of the pure fluid and that of the film-covered surface. While any method of surface tension measurement can be used, most of the methods of capillarity are, for one reason or another, ill-suited for work with film-covered surfaces with the principal exceptions of the Wilhelmy slide method (Section II-6) and the pendant drop experiment (Section II-7). Both approaches work very well with fluid films and are capable of measuring low values of pressure with similar precision of 0.01 dyn/cm. In addition, the film balance, considerably updated since Langmuir s design (see Section III-7) is a popular approach to measurement of V. 

A film at low densities and pressures obeys the equations of state described in Section III-7. The available area per molecule is laige compared to the cross-sectional area. The film pressure can be described as the difference in osmotic pressure acting over a depth, r, between the interface containing the film and the pure solvent interface [188-190]. 

A difficulty in the physicochemical study of penetration is that the amount of soluble component present in the monolayer is not an easily accessible quantity. It may be measured directly, through the use of radioactive labeling (Section III-6) [263, 266], but the technique has so far been used only to a limited extent. 

Some further details are the following. Film nonideality may be allowed for [192]. There may be a chemical activation barrier to the transfer step from monolayer to subsurface solution and hence also for monolayer formation by adsorption from solution [294-296]. Dissolving rates may be determined with the use of the radioactive labeling technique of Section III-6A, although precautions are necessary [297]. 

The treatments that are concerned in more detail with the nature of the adsorbed layer make use of the general thermodynamic framework of the derivation of the Gibbs equation (Section III-5B) but differ in the handling of the electrochemical potential and the surface excess of the ionic species [114-117]. The derivation given here is after that of Grahame and Whitney [117]. Equation III-76 gives the combined first- and second-law statements for the surface excess quantities... 

One fascinating feature of the physical chemistry of surfaces is the direct influence of intermolecular forces on interfacial phenomena. The calculation of surface tension in section III-2B, for example, is based on the Lennard-Jones potential function illustrated in Fig. III-6. The wide use of this model potential is based in physical analysis of intermolecular forces that we summarize in this chapter. In this chapter, we briefly discuss the fundamental electromagnetic forces. The electrostatic forces between charged species are covered in Chapter V. 

It is instructive to consider just how mobile the surface atoms of a solid might be expected to be. Following the approach in Section III-2, one may first consider the evaporation-condensation equilibrium. The number of molecules hitting a 1-cm surface per second is from kinetic theory... 

The calculation of the surface energy of metals has been along two rather different lines. The first has been that of Skapski, outlined in Section III-IB. In its simplest form, the procedure involves simply prorating the surface energy to the energy of vaporization on the basis of the ratio of the number of nearest neighbors for a surface atom to that for an interior atom. The effect is to bypass the theoretical question of the exact calculation of the cohesional forces of a metal and, of course, to ignore the matter of surface distortion. 

The classic nucleation theory is an excellent qualitative foundation for the understanding of nucleation. It is not, however, appropriate to treat small clusters as bulk materials and to ignore the sometimes significant and diffuse interface region. This was pointed out some years ago by Cahn and Hilliard [16] and is reflected in their model for interfacial tension (see Section III-2B). 

The interfacial tension also depends on curvature (see Section III-1C) [25-27]. This alters Eq. IX-1 by adding a radius-dependent surface tension... 

An equation algebraically equivalent to Eq. XI-4 results if instead of site adsorption the surface region is regarded as an interfacial solution phase, much as in the treatment in Section III-7C. The condition is now that the (constant) volume of the interfacial solution is i = V + JV2V2, where V and Vi are the molar volumes of the solvent and solute, respectively. If the activities of the two components in the interfacial phase are replaced by the volume fractions, the result is... 

We suppose that the Gibbs dividing surface (see Section III-5) is located at the surface of the solid (with the implication that the solid itself is not soluble). It follows that the surface excess F, according to this definition, is given by (see Problem XI-9)... 

Thus, adding surfactants to minimize the oil-water and solid-water interfacial tensions causes removal to become spontaneous. On the other hand, a mere decrease in the surface tension of the water-air interface, as evidenced, say, by foam formation, is not a direct indication that the surfactant will function well as a detergent. The decrease in yow or ysw implies, through the Gibb s equation (see Section III-5) adsorption of detergent. 

The W—W bond energy should be about one-sixth of the sublimation energy (note Section III-IB), and there are various schemes for estimating electronegativities, of which Mulliken s [151,152] is perhaps the most fundamental. 

The question of determination of the phase of a field (classical or quantal, as of a wave function) from the modulus (absolute value) of the field along a real parameter (for which alone experimental determination is possible) is known as the phase problem [28]. (True also in crystallography.) The reciprocal relations derived in Section III represent a formal scheme for the determination of phase given the modulus, and vice versa. The physical basis of these singular integral relations was described in [147] and in several companion articles in that volume a more recent account can be found in [148]. Thus, the reciprocal relations in the time domain provide, under certain conditions of analyticity, solutions to the phase problem. For electromagnetic fields, these were derived in [120,149,150] and reviewed in [28,148]. Matter or Schrodinger waves were... 

Coherent states and diverse semiclassical approximations to molecular wavepackets are essentially dependent on the relative phases between the wave components. Due to the need to keep this chapter to a reasonable size, we can mention here only a sample of original works (e.g., [202-205]) and some summaries [206-208]. In these, the reader will come across the Maslov index [209], which we pause to mention here, since it links up in a natural way to the modulus-phase relations described in Section III and with the phase-fiacing method in Section IV. The Maslov index relates to the phase acquired when the semiclassical wave function haverses a zero (or a singularity, if there be one) and it (and, particularly, its sign) is the consequence of the analytic behavior of the wave function in the complex time plane. 

In Section III.C.5, we give conditions under which Eqs. (9) and (10) are exactly or approximately valid. Noteworthy among these is the nearly adiabatic (slowly evolving) case, which relates to the Deny phase [9]. 

By substituting these expressions into Eq. (55), one can see after some algebra that ln,g(x, t) can be identified with lnx (t) + P t) shown in Section III.C.4. Moreover, In (f) = 0. It can be verified, numerically or algebraically, that the log-modulus and phase of In X-(t) obey the reciprocal relations (9) and (10). In more realistic cases (i.e., with several Gaussians), Eq. (56-58) do not hold. It still may be due that the analytical properties of the wavepacket remain valid and so do relations (9) and (10). If so, then these can be thought of as providing numerical checks on the accuracy of approximate wavepackets. 

This part of our chapter has shown that the use of the two variables, moduli and phases, leads in a direct way to the derivation of the continuity and Hamilton-Jacobi equations for both scalar and spinor wave functions. For the latter case, we show that the differential equations for each spinor component are (in the nearly nomelativistic limit) approximately decoupled. Because of this decoupling (mutual independence) it appears that the reciprocal relations between phases and moduli derived in Section III hold to a good approximation for each spinor component separately, too. For velocities and electromagnetic field strengths that ate nomrally below the relativistic scale, the Berry phase obtained from the Schrddinger equation (for scalar fields) will not be altered by consideration of the Dirac equation. 

This decomposition into a longitudinal and a hansverse part, as will be discussed in Section III, plays a crucial role in going to a diabatic representation in which this singularity is completely removed. In addition, the presence of the first derivative gradient term W l Rx) Vr x (Rx) in Eq. (15), even for a nonsingular Wi i (Rx) (e.g., for avoided intersections), introduces numerical inefficiencies in the solution of that equation. 

In Section III.D, we shall investigate when this happens. For the moment, imagine that we are at a point of degeneracy. To find out the topology of the adiabatic PES around this point, the diabatic potential matrix elements can be expressed by a hrst order Taylor expansion. 

For states of different symmetry, to first order the terms AW and W[2 are independent. When they both go to zero, there is a conical intersection. To connect this to Section III.C, take Qq to be at the conical intersection. The gradient difference vector in Eq. f75) is then a linear combination of the symmetric modes, while the non-adiabatic coupling vector inEq. (76) is a linear combination of the appropriate nonsymmetric modes. States of the same symmetry may also foiiti a conical intersection. In this case it is, however, not possible to say a priori which modes are responsible for the coupling. All totally symmetric modes may couple on- or off-diagonal, and the magnitudes of the coupling determine the topology. 

In Section III.A, it was shown that the nuclear wavepacket can be represented by a packet associated with each electronic state, %i. Each of these packets can... 

By using the determinant fomi of the electronic wave functions, it is readily shown that a phase-inverting reaction is one in which an even number of election pairs are exchanged, while in a phase-preserving reaction, an odd number of electron pairs are exchanged. This holds for Htickel-type reactions, and is demonstrated in Appendix A. For a definition of Hilckel and Mbbius-type reactions, see Section III. 

The classic example is the butadiene system, which can rearrange photochemi-cally to either cyclobutene or bicyclobutane. The spin pairing diagrams are shown in Figure 13. The stereochemical properties of this reaction were discussed in Section III (see Fig. 8). A related reaction is the addition of two ethylene derivatives to form cyclobutanes. In this system, there are also three possible spin pairing options. 

---