Page 150 - MODERN ELECTROCHEMISTRY
P. 150

90 CHAPTER 2






















                        Fig 2.27. Differential dielectric  constant  as  a  func-
                        tion of field that is near an ion. (Reprinted from B. E.
                        Conway, Ionic Hydration in Chemistry and Biophysics,
                        Elsevier, New York, 1981.)





            where  is  the  total  number of water molecules held by the ion, and   is the ionic
            concentration in mol   Here, the first term represents the contribution from the
            bulk  water  molecules  and the second term  that  from the bounded  waters.  Thus,
            measurements of the dielectric constants of ionic solutions provide a way to determine
            primary hydration numbers, the number of water molecules that stay with an ion while
            it diffuses in a solution.
               Of course the assumption that in ionic solutions there are just two dielectric constants,
            one at 6 and the other at 80, is a simplification. There must be an intermediate region in
            the first two or three layers out near the ion in which the dielectric constant varies quite
           rapidly as one passes from the 6 of the first layer to the 80 a few layers further out.
               This broken-down region near the ion was the subject of mathematical discussion by
            Webb as early as 1926, by Conway et al., and by Booth, whose paper also can be considered
            seminal. Grahame made an attempt to simplify Booth’s equation for the dielectric constant
            as a function of field strength, and a diagram due to him is shown in Fig. 2.27.
               Although the dielectric constant shown here is in terms of the  field near the ion,
                                        24
            not the distance from it, it is fairly  simple to find the distance that corresponds to
            those fields in the diagram and thus know what the dielectric constant is as a function
            of distance.


            24
             Only fairly simple because the field itself depends on  the quantity one is trying to find. There is thus
             a catch to obtaining the distance corresponding to a certain field. An early solution to the problem was
             given by Conway, Bockris, and Ammar in 1951.
   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155