Front motion in an A+B→C type reaction-diffusion process: Effects of an electric field

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 122, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  Bena, I ^a,b   Coppex, F ^a,b   Droz, M ^a,b   Racz Z ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^b EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONEUTRALITY; FRONT MOTION; REACTION ZONE; REACTION-DIFFUSION EQUATIONS; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS;

DIFFUSION; ELECTRIC FIELDS; ELECTROLYTES; IONS;

CHEMICAL REACTIONS;

EID: 22944462100     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1833356     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. For a review, see M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 851 (1994).
2. R. E. Liesegang, Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 11, 353 (1896).
3. H. K. Henisch, Periodic Precipitation (Pergamon, New York, 1991).
4. It should be noted that, using special initial conditions, precipitation patterns may also form without the presence of reaction zones [see for a recent example S. C. Müller and J. Ross, J. Phys. Chem. A 107, 7997 (2003)].
5. In a usual Liesegang experiment, however, the reaction front is easily detectable and the emergence of the precipitation bands is strongly correlated with the position of the front.
6. See, e.g., Z. Rácz, Physica A 274, 50 (1999).
7. T. Antal, M. Droz, J. Magnin, Z. Rácz, and M. Zrinyi, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 9479 (1998).
8. J. Magnin, Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva, 2000.
9. T. Antal, M. Droz, J. Magnin, and Z. Rácz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2880 (1999).
10. T. Antal, M. Droz, J. Magnin, A. Pekalski, and Z. Rácz, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 3770 (2001).
11. This is a delicate point. Indeed, one could argue, for example, that the subsequent precipitation of C would change the mobility of the reagents. There are no experimental indications on the relevance of these effects, and thus on the correctness of our assumption. It can receive some aposteriori justification - through the fact that it leads to quantitatively correct final results.
12. J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahini, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 8, The Dynamics of First-order Transitions, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, New York, 1983).
13. J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, J. Chem. Phys. 28, 258 (1958).
14. J. W. Cahn, Acta Metall. 9, 795 (1961).
15. P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977).
16. L. Gálfi and Z. Rácz, Phys. Rev. A 38, 3151 (1988).
17. T. Unger and Z. Rácz, Phys. Rev. E 61, 3583 (2000).
18. P. Happel, R. E. Liesegang, and O. Mastbaum, Kolloid-Z. 48, 80 (1929);
19. 48, 252 (1929).
20. B. Kisch, Kolloid-Z. 49, 154 (1929).
21. P. Ortoleva, in Theoretical Chemistry, edited by H. Eyring (Academic, New York, 1978), Vol. IV.
22. R. Feeney, S. L. Schmidt, P. Strickholm, J. Chadam, and P. Ortoleva, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 1293 (1983).
23. A. H. Sharbaugh III and A. H. Sharbaugh, Jr., J. Chem. Educ. 66, 589 (1989).
24. I. Das, A. Pushkarna, and A. Bhattacharjee, J. Phys. Chem. 94, 8968 (1990).
25. I. Das, A. Pushkarna, and A. Bhattacharjee, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 3866 (1991).
26. I. Das, A. Pushkarna, and S. Chand, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 150, 178 (1992).
27. D. S. Chernavskii, A. A. Polezhaev, and S. C. Müller, Physica D 54, 160 (1991).
28. A. A. Polezhaev and S. C. Müller, Chaos 4, 631 (1994).
29. R. Sultan and R. Halabieh, Chem. Phys. Lett. 332, 331 (2000).
30. M. Al-Ghoul and R. Sultan, J. Phys. Chem. A 107, 1095 (2003).
31. I. Lagzi, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 4, 1268 (2002).
32. I. Lagzi and F. Izsák, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 5, 4144 (2003).
33. I. Lagzi, private communication.
34. Thus the problem of the dependence of the width of the reaction front on the applied electric field is not approached here, but left for further studies.
35. See, e.g., I. Rubinstein, Electrodiffusion of Ions (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1990);
36. J. Koryta, J. Dvorak, and L. Kavan, Principles of Electrochemistry (Wiley, New York, 1993).
37. T. Unger, Master thesis, Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary, 1999.
38. 0 is maintained constant. However, as discussed in some more detail in Appendix B2, for the experimentally relevant observation times there is no significant difference between these two situations.