The Galvani potential difference

Thus Pi, surface potential jump X, the chemical potential p, and the Galvani potential difference between two phases A0 = are not. While jl, is defined, there is a practical dif-... 

Once current passes tluough the interface, the Galvani potential difference will differ from that expected from the Nemst equation above the magnitude of the difference is temied the overpotential, which is defined heiiristically as... 

Of fundamental importance in understanding the electrochemistry of ion-selective membranes and also of biomembranes is the research in the field of voltammetry at ITIES mainly pioneered by Koryta and coworkers 99 101 . Koryta also demonstrated convincingly that a treatment like corroding metal electrodes is possible 102). For the latter, the description in the form of an Evans-diagram is most appropriate Fig. 4 shows schematically some mixed potentials, which are likely to arise at cation-selective membranes if interfering ions disturb an ideal Nernstian behavior82. Here, the vertical axis describes the galvani potential differences (absolute po-... 

Assuming that the two space-charge regions are separated by a layer of solvent molecules (inner layer or mixed solvent layer), the Galvani potential difference can be expressed as the sum of three contributions ... 

FIGURE 32.4 Potential dependence of the interfacial tension J and the capacity C for the interface between solutions of 5mM tetrabutylammonium tetraphenylborate in 1,2-dichloroethane and lOOmM LiCl in water. The potential scale E represents the Galvani potential difference relative to the standard ion transfer potential for tetraethylammonium ion, cP o EA+ = 0.02 V. 

However, as stated above, the partition coefficients measured by the shake-flask method or by potenhometric titration can be influenced by the potenhal difference between the two phases, and are therefore apparent values which depend on the experimental condihons (phase volume ratio, nature and concentrahons of all ions in the solutions). In particular, it has been shown that the difference between the apparent and the standard log Pi depends on the phase volume raho and that this relationship itself depends on the lipophilicity of the ion [80]. In theory, the most relevant case for in vivo extrapolation is when V /V 1 as it corresponds to the phase ratio encountered by a drug as it distributes within the body. The measurement of apparent log Pi values does not allow to differentiate between ion-pairing effect and partihoning of the ions due to the Galvani potential difference, and it has been shown that the apparent lipophilicity of a number of quaternary ion drugs is not due to ion-pair partitioning as inihally thought [80]. 

From the thermodynamic point of view, the occurrence of a heterogeneous ET event at a liquid-liquid interface is determined not only by the relation of redox potentials between reactants in each phase, but also by the Galvani potential difference. Let us consider the general reaction,... 

The previous analysis indicates that although the voltammetiic behavior suggests that the aqueous phase behaves as a metal electrode dipped into the organic phase, the interfacial concentration of the aqueous redox couple does exhibit a dependence on the Galvani potential difference. In this sense, it is not necessary to invoke potential perturbations due to interfacial ion pairing in order to account for deviations from the Butler Volmer behavior [63]. This phenomenon has also been discarded in recent studies of the same system based on SECM [46]. In this work, the authors observed a potential independent ket for the reaction sequence. 

Although the correlation between ket and the driving force determined by Eq. (14) has been confirmed by various experimental approaches, the effect of the Galvani potential difference remains to be fully understood. The elegant theoretical description by Schmickler seems to be in conflict with a great deal of experimental results. Even clearer evidence of the k t dependence on A 0 has been presented by Fermin et al. for photo-induced electron-transfer processes involving water-soluble porphyrins [50,83]. As discussed in the next section, the rationalization of the potential dependence of ket iti these systems is complicated by perturbations of the interfacial potential associated with the specific adsorption of the ionic dye. 

As mentioned earlier, a great deal of literature has dealt with the properties of heterogeneous liquid systems such as microemulsions, micelles, vesicles, and lipid bilayers in photosynthetic processes [114,115,119]. At externally polarizable ITIES, the control on the Galvani potential difference offers an extra variable, which allows tuning reaction paths and rates. For instance, the rather high interfacial reactivity of photoexcited porphyrin species has proved to be able to promote processes such as the one shown in Fig. 3(b). The inhibition of back ET upon addition of hexacyanoferrate in the photoreaction of Fig. 17 is an example of a photosynthetic reaction at polarizable ITIES [87,166]. At Galvani potential differences close to 0 V, a direct redox reaction involving an equimolar ratio of the hexacyanoferrate couple and TCNQ features an uphill ET of approximately 0.10 eV (see Fig. 4). However, the excited state of the porphyrin heterodimer can readily inject an electron into TCNQ and subsequently receive an electron from ferrocyanide. For illumination at 543 nm (2.3 eV), the overall photoprocess corresponds to a 4% conversion efficiency. 

This time, the boundary line is independent of the Galvani potential difference across the interface, and the corresponding pH value can be regarded as the effective dissociation constant, pK eff, which appears experimentally due to the partitioning of the neutral species. For a monoprotic substance, pK eff can thus be defined as ... 

It should be noted that the Galvani potential difference consists of the contribution of ions g(ion) and of the oriented dipoles g(dipole) ... 

---