Copyright © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Priority communication
How metal (hydr)oxides are protonated in aqueous media: The (n+1) rule and the role of the interfacial potential
Received 11 October 2005;
Abstract
The mechanism of the protonation of solid metal (hydr)oxides in aqueous media, which is closely interrelated to many processes of great technological and environmental importance, has been elucidated using simulation and experimental work. The electrical potential, smeared out at the interfacial region, changes the concentration of the H+ ions on the surface of the (hydr)oxide, thus promoting or hindering protonation. This is manifested by the shifts of the protonation peaks of the various kinds of surface sites and the appearance of an extra peak in the differential potentiometric titration curve.
Graphical abstract
Differential potentiometric titration curves of a model oxide with two surface sites ((A) and (C)). Protonation of site A is split into two parts: under negative potential (A) and under positive potential (A′).
Keywords: Acidity; Interface; Langmuir adsorption; Metal (hydr)oxide; Protonation; Differential potentiometric titration; Surface site; Interfacial potential






E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links

Cited By in Scopus (5)

10−11 mol Fe(II) m−2 g−1), the total amount of Fe(III) reduced over time along with the mechanisms and extent of Fe(II) sequestration differ among the three iron (hydr)oxide substrates. Following 16 d of reaction, the amount of Fe(III) reduced within the ferrihydrite, goethite, and hematite columns is 25, 5, and 1%, respectively. While 83% of the Fe(II) produced in the ferrihydrite system is retained within the solid-phase, merely 17% is retained within both the goethite and hematite columns. Magnetite precipitation is responsible for the majority of Fe(II) sequestration within ferrihydrite, yet magnetite was not detected in either the goethite or hematite systems. Instead, Fe(II) may be sequestered as localized spinel-like (magnetite) domains within surface hydrated layers (ca. 1 nm thick) on goethite and hematite or by electron delocalization within the bulk phase. The decreased solubility of goethite and hematite relative to ferrihydrite, resulting in lower Fe(III)aq and bacterially-generated Fe(II)aq concentrations, may hinder magnetite precipitation beyond mere surface reorganization into nanometer-sized, spinel-like domains. Nevertheless, following an initial, more rapid reduction period, the three Fe (hydr)oxides support similar aqueous ferrous iron concentrations, bacterial populations, and microbial Fe(III) reduction rates. A decline in microbial reduction rates and further Fe(II) retention in the solid-phase correlates with the initial degree of phase disorder (high energy sites). As such, sustained microbial reduction of 2-line ferrihydrite, goethite, and hematite appears to be controlled, in large part, by changes in surface reactivity (energy), which is influenced by microbial reduction and secondary Fe(II) sequestration processes regardless of structural order (crystallinity) and surface area.





