Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:02:21.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competing Elementary Reactions in a Capillary - Two Reaction Fronts Moving in Opposite Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Sung Hyun Park ,
Haim Taitelbaum  and
Raoul Kopelman
Sung Hyun Park
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1055, U.S.A.
Haim Taitelbaum
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
Raoul Kopelman
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1055, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

The behavior of two reaction fronts created in a system of two competing reactions has been investigated using the reaction between xylenol orange (XO) and chromium(III) ion in aqueous solution. Two reaction fronts have been shown to move in opposite directions, which is explained in terms of relative concentrations among three reactant species. This explanation was verified by the observation of only one reaction front for selected different relative concentrations, where both reaction fronts move in unison. As predicted by theory and confirmed by computer simulation, the position (xf) of each reaction front scales as t½, irrespective of the direction of motion.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 543: Symposium W – Dynamics in Small Confining Systems IV , 1998 , 249
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Galfi, L. and Racz, Z., Phys. Rev. A 38, 3151 (1988).Google Scholar
2. Taitelbaum, H., Havlin, S., Kiefer, J. E., Trus, B., and Weiss, G. H., J. Stat. Phys. 65, 873 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Koo, Y.-E. L. and Kopelman, R., J. Stat. Phys. 65, 893 (1991).Google Scholar
4. Cornell, S., Droz, M., and Chopard, B., Physica A 188, 322 (1992).Google Scholar
5. Vilenski, B., Havlin, S., Taitelbaum, H., and Weiss, G. H., J. Phys. Chem. 98, 7325 (1994).Google Scholar
6. Cabarcos, E. L., Kuo, C.-S., Scala, A., and Bansil, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2834 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Murray, J. D., Mathematical Biology, Biomathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol.19 (1993).Google Scholar
8. Avnir, D. and Kagan, M., Nature 307, 717 (1984).Google Scholar
9. Liesegang, R. E., Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 11, 353 (1896).Google Scholar
10. Mueller, K. F., Science 225, 1021 (1984).Google Scholar
11. Taitelbaum, H., Koo, Y.-E. L., Havlin, S., Kopelman, R., and Weiss, G. H., Phys. Rev. A 46, 2151 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Koza, Z. and Taitelbaum, H., Phys. Rev. E 54, R1040 (1996).Google Scholar
13. Snell, F. D., Photometric and Fluorometric Methods of Analysis, Wiley, New York, Part I, 1978.Google Scholar
14. Stunzi, H., Spicca, L., Rotzinger, F. P., and Marty, W., Inorg. Chem. 28, 66 (1989).Google Scholar
15. Yen, A., Lin, A., Koo, Y.-E. L., Vilenski, B., Taitelbaum, H., and Kopelman, R., J. Phys. Chem. 101, 2819 (1997)Google Scholar