4.7 Article

Cation-dependent restructure of the electric double layer on CO-covered Pt electrodes: Difference between hydrophilic and hydrophobic cations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 800, 期 -, 页码 19-24

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2016.12.034

关键词

Electric double layers; Surface restructure; Photodesorption; Hydrophobic hydration shell; Hydrophilic hydration shell; Surface-enhanced IR absorption spectroscopy

资金

  1. PRESTO/JST program Chemical Conversion of Light Energy [16H04188]
  2. MEXT [16H00852]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H00852, 16H04188] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Structural changes in water layers on a CO-covered Pt electrode triggered by rapid pulsed laser heating of the interface are studied using potential transient measurements. When the laser energy density is below 20 mJ cm(-2), the water layers undergo a change in orientation, which causes a negative shift in the rest potential that recovers within 20 ps with the cooling of the interface. In contrast, when the laser intensity exceeds 20 mJ cm(-2), the CO is desorbed and the rest potential first experiences a positive shift, which is followed by a negative shift. This positive shift is caused by replacement of the CO by water and subsequent restructuring of the water layer. The restructuring rate depends strongly on the electrolyte cation: the rest potential reaches a maximum value within 100 ps for hydrophilic cations such as H+ and Li+, whereas it takes >10 ms for hydrophobic cations such as Et4N+ and Bu4N+. Surface-enhanced IR absorption measurements suggest that the water molecules around the hydrophobic cations are more strongly hydrogen-bonded than those around the hydrophilic cations. Because the restructuring involves a reforming of the hydrogen-bonding network at the electric double layer, Et4N+ and Bu4N+, which have more strongly hydrogen-bonded hydration shells, require more time than H+ and Li+. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据