Surface potential point

TABLE 1 Relative Humidity Values at Which Changes in the Slope of Surface Potential (Point A) Occur... 

Customarily, it is assumed that e is unity and that ]l = p,cos 9, where 0 is the angle of inclination of the dipoles to the normal. Harkins and Fischer [86] point out the empirical nature of this interpretation and prefer to consider only that AV is proportional to the surface concentration F and that the proportionality constant is some quantity characteristic of the film. This was properly cautious as there are many indications that the surface of water is structured and that the structure is altered by the film (see Ref. 37). Accompanying any such structural rearrangement of the substrate at the surface should be a change in its contribution to the surface potential so that AV should not be assigned too literally to the film molecules. 

A quantitative treatment for the depletive adsorption of iogenic species on semiconductors is that known as the boundary layer theory [84,184], in which it is assumed that, as a result of adsorption, a charged layer is formed. Doublelayer theory is applied, and it turns out that the change in surface potential due to adsorption of such a species is proportional to the square of the amount adsorbed. The important point is that very little adsorption, e.g., a 0 of about 0.003, can produce a volt or more potential change. See Ref. 185 for a review. 

As the pH is iacreased or decreased from the isoelectric point, the particles acquire a charge (surface potential) that can enhance repulsion. Surface charge on the particle can be approximated by measuring 2eta potential, which is the electrostatic potential at the Stem layer surrounding a particle. The Stem layer is the thickness of the rigid or nondiffiise layer of counterions at a distance (5) from the particle surface, which corresponds to the electrostatic potential at the surface divided by e (2.718...). 

Fig. 3. Conditions of limiting current, (a) Current density on the electrode surface as a function of surface potential, showing points A, B, and C. The dashed line is for a second Faradaic reaction, (b) The concentration profiles corresponding to points A, B, and C.

Design system to prevent condensation in ductwork or buildup of deposits by providing smooth surfaces, elimination of potential points of solids/liquid accumulation. 

Because of the influence of potential gradients, the work function depends on the position of the point to which the electron is transferred. As in the definition of surface potential, a point a) situated in the vacuum just outside the metal is regarded as the terminal point of transfer. It is assumed, moreover, that when the transfer has been completed, the velocity of the electron is close to zero (i.e., no kinetic energy is imparted on it). 

Consider two conductors, a and (3, in mutual contact in a vacnnm (Fig. 9.2). Each of them has a certain surface potential these potentials are and respectively. Between the conductors the Galvani potential is established. The potential difference between points a and b located in the vacnnm jnst ontside condnctors a and P, respectively, is called the Volta potential or the outer or contact potential difference, of this pair of conductors. Taking into acconnt that the potential difference between two points is independent of the path taken between these points, we have... 

Points a and b are located in the same phase (vacuum) therefore, the Volta potential can be measured, in contrast to what is found for the Galvani potential (between points A and B ) and for the surface potentials (between points a and A, and between points b and B). 

Two types of EDL are distinguished superficial and interfacial. Superficial EDLs are located wholly within the surface layer of a single phase (e.g., an EDL caused by a nonuniform distribution of electrons in the metal, an EDL caused by orientation of the bipolar solvent molecules in the electrolyte solution, an EDL caused by specific adsorption of ions). Tfie potential drops developing in tfiese cases (the potential inside the phase relative to a point just outside) is called the surface potential of the given phase k. Interfacial EDLs have their two parts in dilferent phases the inner layer with the charge density in the metal (because of an excess or deficit of electrons in the surface layer), and the outer layer of counterions with the charge density = -Qs m in the solution (an excess of cations or anions) the potential drop caused by this double layer is called the interfacial potential... 

Figure 11-1. Cartoon of ground and excited state potential energy surfaces, indicating points where nona-diabatic transitions can occur...

Up to now in this chapter, we have concentrated on the measurement via electric field sensitive dyes of the transmembrane electrical potential, which by itself should produce a linear drop in the electrical potential across a membrane. However, at least through the lipid matrix of a cell membrane, the electrical potential, /, at any point does not change linearly across the membrane. Instead, it follows a complex profile (see Fig. 6). This is due to contributions other than the transmembrane electrical potential to /. The other contributions come from the surface potential and the dipole potential. Both of these can also be quantified via electric field sensitive dyes. 

In the most common LB films with the Y-type structure, the center of inversion exists, and hence they are not suitable for pyroelectric usages. On the other hand, since LB films with X- or Z-type structure have no center of symmetry, it is possible to construct the polar pyroelectric film with permanent dipoles pointing toward one direction. Similar structures can also be formed in hetero LB films with two different amphiphiles stacked altematingly. The first report on the pyroelectric LB film with X-or Z-type structure appeared in 1982 by Blinov et al. [12], It was followed by those of the alternate LB films by Smith et al. [13] and Christie et al. [14]. The polarized structure of the fabricated LB film can be checked by the surface potential measurements using the Kelvin probe [15], the Stark effect measurements [12], or the sign inversion of the induced current between heating and cooling processes. 

Janssens et al. [38, 40] used photoemission of adsorbed noble gases to measure the electrostatic surface potential on the potassium-promoted (111) surface of rhodium, to estimate the range that is influenced by the promoter. As explained in Chapter 3, UPS of adsorbed Xe measures the local work function, or, equivalently, the electrostatic potential of adsorption sites. The idea of using Kr and Ar in addition to Xe was that by using probe atoms of different sizes one could vary the distance between the potassium and the noble gas atom. Provided the interpretation in terms of Expression (3-13) is permitted, and this is a point the authors checked [38], one thus obtains information about the variation of the electrostatic potential around potassium promoter atoms. 

Any charge change occurring only between the reference electrode and the semiconductor is a candidate for a change of Ids. In particular one of the most important points is the surface potential at the oxide-solution interface (surface potentials between the CIM and the solution and the potential between the SiC>2 and the CIM, in the presence of a given CIM. The ISFET operation may be represented by the following changes-flow which may be considered as superimposed on the quiescent point determined by the reference electrode potential ... 

---