4.7 Article

A thermodynamic correction to the theory of competitive chemisorption of ions at surface sites with nonelectrostatic physisorption

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 151, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5096237

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Regione Autonoma della Sardegna [LR 7/2007]
  2. Fondazione di Sardegna/Regione Autonoma della Sardegna [CUP F72F16003070002]
  3. FFABR 2017 (MIUR)
  4. Australian Government
  5. Government of Western Australia
  6. FIR 2019

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We resolve a thermodynamic inconsistency in previous theoretical descriptions of the free energy of chemisorption (charge regulation) under conditions where nonelectrostatic physisorption is included, as applied to surface forces and particle-particle interactions. We clarify the role of nonelectrostatic ion physisorption energies and show that a term previously thought to represent physisorbed ion concentrations (activities) should instead be interpreted as a partial ion activity based solely on the electrostatic physisorption energy and bulk concentration, or alternatively on the nonelectrostatic physisorption energy and surface concentration. Second, the chemisorption energy must be understood as the change in chemical potential after subtracting the electrostatic energy, not subtracting the physisorption energy. Consequently, a previously reported specific ion nonelectrostatic physisorption contribution to the chemisorption free energy is annulled. We also report a correction to the calculation of surface charge. The distinction in partial ion activity evaluated from bulk concentration or from surface concentration opens a way to study nonequilibrium forces where chemisorption is in equilibrium with physisorbed ions but not in equilibrium with bulk ions, e.g., by a jump in ion concentrations. Published under license by AIP Publishing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available