Surface dielectric theory

The results of the electron theory as developed for semiconductors are fully applicable to dielectrics. They cannot, however, be automatically applied to metals. Contrary to the case of semiconductors, the application of the band theory of solids to metals cannot be considered as theoretically well justified as the present time. This is especially true for the transition metals and for chemical processes on metal surfaces. The theory of chemisorption and catalysis on metals (as well as the electron theory of metals in general) must be based essentially on the many-electron approach. However, these problems have not been treated in any detail as yet. 

For electrostatic models based on dielectric theory the experimental solvent dielectric constant, reflecting the contribution of electronic polarizability and dipole reorientation, is usually used throughout (e.g. for water at 25°C e=78.6). In principle however, Eqn. (4) is equally applicable to water and could be used to model how the dielectric constant of water might be perturbed at the protein surface, although the contribution of cooperative motions is particularly hard to treat accurately. In addition the accuracy of explicit water molecules, and the difficulties of obtaining dielectric behavior from MM and MC simulations have restricted this approach. 

Q (r — fb). In this case, and for transfer of one electron, A(R ) = A(R ) is the difference between the electrostatic potentials at the A and B centers that is easily evaluated in numerical simulations. An example of such result, the free energy surfaces for electron transfer within the Fe i /Fe redox pair, is shown in Fig. 16.5. The resulting curves are fitted very well by identical shifted parabolas. Results of such numerical simulations indicate that the origin of the parabolic form of these free energy curves is more fundamental than what is implied by continuum linear dielectric theory. 

For the electrostatic component, the free energy varies in a harmonic fashion with respect to deviations from equilibrium with a constant force constant (Figure 11.19). This is a standard result from dielectric theory and means that the mean square fluctuations of the energy on the two surfaces (the second terms in Equation (11.41)) will cancel, leaving just the first term. This leads to a value of for the electrostatic component (i.e. d = 0 5). A simple test of this theory is to calculate the electrostatic contribution to solvation free energies. Here, state X corresponds to the situation where all of the solvent-solvent and intramolecular solute interactions are present but the interaction between the solute and solvent is only described... 

Only a few attempts have been made to use computational methods for the silanol acidities. Sverjensky and Sahai have developed a method for estimating surface protonation equilibrium constants from the surface dielectric constant and an average Pauling bond strength. Rustad and coworkers [319] have used molecular dynamics methods to estimate the pK, for the reaction >SiOH — >SiO + H+ at 8.5. Tossell [320] used several quantum chemical levels of theory to establish correlations between calculated gas-phase AE and AH values and experimental aqueous solution pK s. Liu et al. [308] have employed both experimental and computation methods to study the gas-pha.se properties of organic silanols. ... 

Second, the model of Figure 3.1 is predominantly a dielectric model with dry samples. In bioimpedance theory, the materials are considered to be wet, with double layer and polarization effects at the metal surfaces. Errors are introduced, however, that can be reduced by introducing three- or four-electrode systems (Section 7.10). Accordingly, in dielectric theory, the dielectric is considered as an insulator with dielectric losses in bioimpedance theory, the material is considered as a conductor with capacitive properties. Dry samples can easily be measured with a two-electrode system. Wet, ionic samples are prone to errors and special precautions must be taken. 

In contrary, surface dielectric function model [38] suggests that photon emission of sized quantum dot (QD) depends on changes to dielectric function in the superficial skin rather than the entire dot as QC theory refers. The dielectric function in the core interior of a QD remains as that of the bulk material, but in a small dot, the differences are greater near the grain boundary. 

The tangential electric field drives electric currents around the particle surface. In most electroldnetic theories it is assumed that this current is dominated by the contribution from the diffuse layer ions, for the material inside the shear plane is taken to be immobile and non-conducting. While this assumption seems to be valid for many colloids, including oxide systems, for some systems there is significant electrical conduction in the region between the shear plane and the particle surface. Dielectric dispersion and ESA studies have shown this to be the case in kaolinite [21], bentonite [20], lattices [22,23] and in emulsions [2]. We refer to this phenomenon as stagnant layer conduction. 

Manning s theory does not take the local effective dielectric constant into consideration, but simply uses the a value of bulk water for the calculation of E,. However, since counterion condensation is supposed to take place on the surface of polyions. Manning s 2, should be modified to E, by replacing a with aeff. The modified parameters E, is compared with E, in Table 1, which leads to the conclusion that the linear charge density parameter calculated with the bulk dielectric constant considerably underestimates the correct one corresponding to the interfacial dielectric constant. 

The results obtained demonstrate competition between the entropy favouring binding at bumps and the potential most likely to favour binding at dips of the surface. For a range of pairwise-additive, power-law interactions, it was found that the effect of the potential dominates, but in the (non-additive) limit of a surface of much higher dielectric constant than in solution the entropy effects win. Thus, the preferential binding of the polymer to the protuberances of a metallic surface was predicted [22]. Besides, this theory indirectly assumes the occupation of bumps by the weakly attracted neutral macromolecules capable of covalent interaction with surface functions. 

The models presented above have also been reviewed in Ref 18. Recently, an expression for the adsorption potential at the free water surface based on a combination of the electrostatic theory of dielectrics and classical thermodynamics has also been proposed." ... 

In this Section we want to present one of the fingerprints of noble-metal cluster formation, that is the development of a well-defined absorption band in the visible or near UV spectrum which is called the surface plasma resonance (SPR) absorption. SPR is typical of s-type metals like noble and alkali metals and it is due to a collective excitation of the delocalized conduction electrons confined within the cluster volume [15]. The theory developed by G. Mie in 1908 [22], for spherical non-interacting nanoparticles of radius R embedded in a non-absorbing medium with dielectric constant s i (i.e. with a refractive index n = Sm ) gives the extinction cross-section a(o),R) in the dipolar approximation as ... 

The Hamaker constant A can, in principle, be determined from the C6 coefficient characterizing the strength of the van der Waals interaction between two molecules in vacuum. In practice, however, the value for A is also influenced by the dielectric properties of the interstitial medium, as well as the roughness of the surface of the spheres. Reliable estimates from theory are therefore difficult to make, and unfortunately it also proves difficult to directly determine A from experiment. So, establishing a value for A remains the main difficulty in the numerical studies of the effect of cohesive forces, where the value for glass particles is assumed to be somewhere in the range of 10 21 joule. 

Due to the finite size of the ions and the solvent molecules, the solution shows considerable structure at the interface, which is not accounted for in the simple Gouy-Chapman theory. The occurrence of a decrease of C from the maximum near the pzc is caused by dielectric saturation, which lowers the dielectric constant and hence the capacity for high surface-charge densities. 

The Gouy-Chapman theory treats the electrolyte as consisting of point ions in a dielectric continuum. This is reasonable when the concentration of the ions is low, and the space charge is so far from the metal surface that the discrete molecular nature of the solution is not important. This is not true at higher electrolyte concentrations, and better models must be used in this case. Improvements on the Gouy-Chapman theory should explain the origin of the Helmholtz capacity. In the last section we have seen that the metal makes a contribution to the Helmholtz capacity other contributions are expected to arise from the molecular structure of the solution. 

---