schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Which mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?

We present a more general expression for the relationship of potential dependence, which implies that a change in the interfacial drop across the interface has little effect on the free energy of the reaction, but mainly affects the surface concentration of reactant in each phase. Abundant experimen... Full description

Journal Title: Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP 21 February 2011, Vol.13(7), pp.2774-9
Main Author: Zhou, Min
Other Authors: Gan, Shiyu , Zhong, Lijie , Dong, Xiandui , Niu, Li
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: E-ISSN: 1463-9084 ; PMID: 21152647 Version:1 ; DOI: 10.1039/c0cp01692f
Link: http://pubmed.gov/21152647
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: medline21152647
title: Which mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?
format: Article
creator:
  • Zhou, Min
  • Gan, Shiyu
  • Zhong, Lijie
  • Dong, Xiandui
  • Niu, Li
subjects:
  • Chemistry
ispartof: Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP, 21 February 2011, Vol.13(7), pp.2774-9
description: We present a more general expression for the relationship of potential dependence, which implies that a change in the interfacial drop across the interface has little effect on the free energy of the reaction, but mainly affects the surface concentration of reactant in each phase. Abundant experimental results from several well-known groups are analyzed in great detail to confirm our conclusion. At the same time, we define a new parameter named Frumkin correction factor to describe this relationship of potential dependence, which expresses the thermodynamic effect of double diffuse layers within both phases in contrast with the so often suggested kinetic electron-transfer (ET) coefficient; we also find that it depends on two intimately related aspects: the charges of reactive species and the ratio of the diffuse layer potential to the total potential within each phase, so it is quite arbitrary to ignore the diffuse layer effect in the aqueous phase just because of its relatively small values. In addition, a fascinating question on the inverted region at liquid/liquid interfaces has been successfully interpreted by an opposite surface concentration effect, which was often considered as a kinetic Marcus inverse by most groups.
language: eng
source:
identifier: E-ISSN: 1463-9084 ; PMID: 21152647 Version:1 ; DOI: 10.1039/c0cp01692f
fulltext: no_fulltext
issn:
  • 14639084
  • 1463-9084
url: Link


@attributes
ID1493436700
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid21152647
sourceidmedline
recordidTN_medline21152647
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemOther
pqid963916938
display
typearticle
titleWhich mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?
creatorZhou, Min ; Gan, Shiyu ; Zhong, Lijie ; Dong, Xiandui ; Niu, Li
ispartofPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP, 21 February 2011, Vol.13(7), pp.2774-9
identifier
descriptionWe present a more general expression for the relationship of potential dependence, which implies that a change in the interfacial drop across the interface has little effect on the free energy of the reaction, but mainly affects the surface concentration of reactant in each phase. Abundant experimental results from several well-known groups are analyzed in great detail to confirm our conclusion. At the same time, we define a new parameter named Frumkin correction factor to describe this relationship of potential dependence, which expresses the thermodynamic effect of double diffuse layers within both phases in contrast with the so often suggested kinetic electron-transfer (ET) coefficient; we also find that it depends on two intimately related aspects: the charges of reactive species and the ratio of the diffuse layer potential to the total potential within each phase, so it is quite arbitrary to ignore the diffuse layer effect in the aqueous phase just because of its relatively small values. In addition, a fascinating question on the inverted region at liquid/liquid interfaces has been successfully interpreted by an opposite surface concentration effect, which was often considered as a kinetic Marcus inverse by most groups.
languageeng
source
subjectChemistry;
version5
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
backlink$$Uhttp://pubmed.gov/21152647$$EView_this_record_in_MEDLINE/PubMed
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
addlink$$Uhttp://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/aboutMedline.html$$EView_the_MEDLINE/PubMed_Copyright_Statement
search
creatorcontrib
0Zhou, Min
1Gan, Shiyu
2Zhong, Lijie
3Dong, Xiandui
4Niu, Li
titleWhich mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?
descriptionWe present a more general expression for the relationship of potential dependence, which implies that a change in the interfacial drop across the interface has little effect on the free energy of the reaction, but mainly affects the surface concentration of reactant in each phase. Abundant experimental results from several well-known groups are analyzed in great detail to confirm our conclusion. At the same time, we define a new parameter named Frumkin correction factor to describe this relationship of potential dependence, which expresses the thermodynamic effect of double diffuse layers within both phases in contrast with the so often suggested kinetic electron-transfer (ET) coefficient; we also find that it depends on two intimately related aspects: the charges of reactive species and the ratio of the diffuse layer potential to the total potential within each phase, so it is quite arbitrary to ignore the diffuse layer effect in the aqueous phase just because of its relatively small values. In addition, a fascinating question on the inverted region at liquid/liquid interfaces has been successfully interpreted by an opposite surface concentration effect, which was often considered as a kinetic Marcus inverse by most groups.
general
021152647
1English
2MEDLINE/PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine)
310.1039/c0cp01692f
4MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM)
sourceidmedline
recordidmedline21152647
issn
014639084
11463-9084
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2011
addtitlePhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP
searchscope
0medline
1nlm_medline
2MEDLINE
scope
0medline
1nlm_medline
2MEDLINE
lsr4120110221
citationpf 2774 vol 13 issue 7
startdate20110221
enddate20110221
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[subject, pages, pqid, issn]
sort
titleWhich mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?
authorZhou, Min ; Gan, Shiyu ; Zhong, Lijie ; Dong, Xiandui ; Niu, Li
creationdate20110221
lso0120110221
facets
frbrgroupid5150270463603083172
frbrtype5
newrecords20190701
languageeng
creationdate2011
collectionMEDLINE/PubMed (NLM)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Zhou, Min
1Gan, Shiyu
2Zhong, Lijie
3Dong, Xiandui
4Niu, Li
jtitlePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics : Pccp
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextno_fulltext
addata
aulast
0Zhou
1Gan
2Zhong
3Dong
4Niu
aufirst
0Min
1Shiyu
2Lijie
3Xiandui
4Li
au
0Zhou, Min
1Gan, Shiyu
2Zhong, Lijie
3Dong, Xiandui
4Niu, Li
atitleWhich mechanism operates in the electron-transfer process at liquid/liquid interfaces?
jtitlePhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP
risdate20110221
volume13
issue7
spage2774
pages2774-2779
eissn1463-9084
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractWe present a more general expression for the relationship of potential dependence, which implies that a change in the interfacial drop across the interface has little effect on the free energy of the reaction, but mainly affects the surface concentration of reactant in each phase. Abundant experimental results from several well-known groups are analyzed in great detail to confirm our conclusion. At the same time, we define a new parameter named Frumkin correction factor to describe this relationship of potential dependence, which expresses the thermodynamic effect of double diffuse layers within both phases in contrast with the so often suggested kinetic electron-transfer (ET) coefficient; we also find that it depends on two intimately related aspects: the charges of reactive species and the ratio of the diffuse layer potential to the total potential within each phase, so it is quite arbitrary to ignore the diffuse layer effect in the aqueous phase just because of its relatively small values. In addition, a fascinating question on the inverted region at liquid/liquid interfaces has been successfully interpreted by an opposite surface concentration effect, which was often considered as a kinetic Marcus inverse by most groups.
doi10.1039/c0cp01692f
pmid21152647
issn14639076
oafree_for_read
date2011-02-21