TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding the anatomy of capacitance at interfaces between two immiscible electrolytic solutions
AU - Monroe, C. W.
AU - Urbakh, M.
AU - Kornyshev, A. A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are thankful to Hubert Girault (EPFL) and Bob Samec (Heyrovsky Institute) for useful discussions. Special thanks are due to Sasha Kuznetsov (Frumkin Institute) for his valuable insights during the developmental stages of the project. The whole work was made possible by the generous support of the Leverhulme Trust, Grant No. F/07058/P.
PY - 2005/8/15
Y1 - 2005/8/15
N2 - Why does the Gouy-Chapman theory often predict the magnitude and behavior of capacitance curves at the interface between two immiscible electrolytic solutions, and sometimes fail? Why do experiments sometimes show an "unphysical" negative or zero Stern-layer contribution to the inverse capacitance? These questions motivated the construction of a model to encapsulate the anatomy of this easily experimentally accessible interfacial characteristic. The Verwey-Niessen theory is extended here to allow ionic penetration at the interface. This extension explains several features of experimental curves that arise when solutes vary, such as asymmetry and shifts of the capacitance minimum - features that are described by neither the Gouy-Chapman nor the Verwey-Niessen theories. Free energies of ion transfer are taken as model input parameters to describe ionic penetration into a mixed-solvent interfacial layer. With a single additional parameter that lies in a narrowly constrained range, the model successfully reproduces experimental data. It also shows why the Gouy-Chapman theory works and why the Verwey-Niessen theory rarely does, rationalizing how inner-layer contributions are hidden in the capacitance response.
AB - Why does the Gouy-Chapman theory often predict the magnitude and behavior of capacitance curves at the interface between two immiscible electrolytic solutions, and sometimes fail? Why do experiments sometimes show an "unphysical" negative or zero Stern-layer contribution to the inverse capacitance? These questions motivated the construction of a model to encapsulate the anatomy of this easily experimentally accessible interfacial characteristic. The Verwey-Niessen theory is extended here to allow ionic penetration at the interface. This extension explains several features of experimental curves that arise when solutes vary, such as asymmetry and shifts of the capacitance minimum - features that are described by neither the Gouy-Chapman nor the Verwey-Niessen theories. Free energies of ion transfer are taken as model input parameters to describe ionic penetration into a mixed-solvent interfacial layer. With a single additional parameter that lies in a narrowly constrained range, the model successfully reproduces experimental data. It also shows why the Gouy-Chapman theory works and why the Verwey-Niessen theory rarely does, rationalizing how inner-layer contributions are hidden in the capacitance response.
KW - Adsorption
KW - Compact layer
KW - Differential capacitance
KW - Double-layer capacitance
KW - ITIES
KW - Immiscible electrolytic solutions
KW - Ion penetration
KW - Liquid-liquid interface
KW - Nitrobenzene-water interface
KW - Verwey-Niessen theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23144437191&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jelechem.2005.04.031
DO - 10.1016/j.jelechem.2005.04.031
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:23144437191
VL - 582
SP - 28
EP - 40
JO - Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
JF - Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
SN - 1572-6657
IS - 1-2
ER -