Surface protonation is the most fundamental adsorption process of geochemical interest. Yet remarkably little is known about protonation of mineral surfaces at temperatures greater than 25°C. Experimentally derived standard enthalpies of surface protonation, ΔHr,1°, ΔHr,2°, and ΔHr,ZPC°, correspond to the reactions >SOH+H+=>SOH2+ >SO−+H+=>SOH >SO−+2H+=>SOH2+ respectively, and provide a starting point for evaluating the role of surface protonation in geochemical processes at elevated temperatures. However, the experimental data for oxides do not have a theoretical explanation, and data are completely lacking for silicates other than SiO2. In the present study, the combination of crystal chemical and Born solvation theory provides a theoretical basis for explaining the variation of the enthalpies of protonation of oxides. Experimental values of ΔHr,1°, ΔHr,2°, and ΔHr,ZPC° consistent with the triple layer model can be expressed in terms of the inverse of the dielectric constant (1/ε) and the Pauling bond strength per angstrom (s/rM-OH) of each mineral by equations such as ΔHr,ZPC°=ΔΩr,Z[(1/ε)−(T/ε)2(∂ε/∂T)]−B′Z(s/rM-OH)+H′Z. The Born solvation coefficient ΔΩr,Z was taken from a prior analysis of surface equilibrium constants. The coefficients BZ′ and HZ′ were derived by regression of experimental enthalpies for rutile, γ-alumina, magnetite, hematite, and silica. This approach permits widespread prediction of the enthalpies of surface protonation. Predicted standard enthalpies of surface protonation for oxides and silicates extend over the ranges (in kcal.mole−1): ΔHr,1° ≈ −3 to −15; ΔHr,2° ≈ −0.5 to −18; ΔHr,ZPC° ≈ −4 to −33. Minerals with the largest values of s/rM-OH (e.g., quartz and kaolinite) are predicted to have weakly negative enthalpies and a weak temperature dependence for their protonation equilibrium constants. Conversely, minerals with the smallest values of s/rM-OH (e.g., garnets and olivines) should have strong negative enthalpies and a strong temperature dependence for their protonation equilibrium constants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sverjensky et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: