1: \documentstyle[aps,prb,epsf,multicol]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf,multicol]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[epsf,12pt]{article}
4: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.7}
5:
6: \parskip=5pt
7: %\topmargin=-1.5cm
8: %\textheight=24.0cm
9: %\textwidth=16.0cm
10: %\oddsidemargin=-0.2cm
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14:
15: \title{The pair approach applied to kinetics in restricted geometries:
16: strengths and weaknesses of the method}
17:
18: %
19: % for LATEX
20: %
21: %\author{Z. Konkoli\thanks{Corresponding author.
22: % e-mail: zorank@fy.chalmers.se} \\
23: % Department of Applied Physics, \\
24: % Chalmers University of Technology \\
25: % and G\"oteborg University, \\
26: % SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden
27: % \and
28: % A. Karlsson \\
29: % Department of Chemistry,\\
30: % G\"oteborg University, \\
31: % SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden
32: % \and
33: % O. Orwar \\
34: % Department of Physical Chemistry \\
35: % and Microtechnology Centre at Chalmers,\\
36: % Chalmers University of Technology,\\
37: % SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden
38: %}
39:
40: %
41: % for REVTEX
42: %
43: \author{Z. Konkoli\thanks{Corresponding author. %
44: e-mail: zorank@fy.chalmers.se}$^{,1}$,
45: A. Karlsson$^2$, and O. Orwar$^3$}
46: \address{
47: $^1${Department of Applied Physics, \\
48: Chalmers University of Technology
49: and G\"oteborg University, \\
50: SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden} \\
51: $^2${Department of Chemistry,\\
52: G\"oteborg University, \\
53: SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden} \\
54: $^3${Department of Physical Chemistry \\
55: and Microtechnology Centre at Chalmers,\\
56: Chalmers University of Technology,\\
57: SE-412 96 G\"{o}teborg, Sweden}
58: }
59:
60: \date{\today}
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65:
66: In the rapidly emerging field of nanotechnology, as well as in biology
67: where chemical reaction phenomena take place in systems with
68: characteristic length scales ranging from micrometer to the nanometer
69: range, understanding of chemical kinetics in restricted geometries is
70: of increasing interest. In particular, there is a need to develop more
71: accurate theoretical methods. We used many-particle-density-function
72: formalism (originally developed to study infinite systems) in its
73: simplest form (pair approach) to study two-species $A+B\rightarrow 0$
74: reaction-diffusion model in a finite volume. For simplicity reasons,
75: it is assumed that geometry of the system is one-dimensional (1d) and
76: closed into the ring to avoid boundary effects.
77: The two types of initial conditions are studied with (i) equal initial
78: number of A and B particles $N_{0,A}=N_{0,B}$ and (ii) initial number
79: of particles is only equal in average $\langle N_{0,A} \rangle =
80: \langle N_{0,B} \rangle$. In both cases it was assumed that in the
81: initial state the particles are well mixed. It is found that particle
82: concentration decays exponentially for both types of initial
83: conditions. In the case of the type (ii) initial condition, the
84: results of the pair-like analytical model agrees qualitatively with
85: computer experiment (Monte Carlo simulation), while less agreement was
86: obtained for the type (i) initial condition, and the reasons for such
87: behavior are discussed.
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: %\pacs{}
91:
92:
93: \begin{multicols}{2}
94:
95: \narrowtext
96:
97:
98: \section{Introduction}
99:
100:
101: Classically, biochemical reaction kinetics is extrapolated from
102: measurements in dilute solutions and fitted into the cellular reaction
103: environment, and several flaws in this approach have been pointed
104: out.~\cite{IntRevCyto} The main motivation of our work is to improve
105: the understanding of diffusion-controlled reactions in topologically
106: complex nanoscale environments represented in biological cells. In
107: this study attempt is made to develop better theoretical methods which
108: could describe diffusion-controlled reactions with boundaries. To
109: achieve this goal, a particular way of doing calculation, the
110: many-particle-density-function (MPDF)
111: approach,~\cite{PhysRev1,PhysRev2,kotkuz,kotkuz1} is modified to
112: account for presence of boundaries.
113:
114: The theoretical findings of this study are relevant for experimental
115: work done in refs.~\onlinecite{Chiu1,Chiu2,Karl1}. Even if we focus on
116: biochemical reaction kinetics, the results should have an equal
117: bearing on nanotechnological applications such as
118: nanofluidics~\cite{Karl3} or molecular electronics~\cite{Park1}. Both
119: are likely to be strongly dependent on reaction-diffusion behaviors of
120: molecules (nanofluidics) or electrons and holes (molecular
121: electronics) in restricted nanoscale geometries.
122:
123: Most of the studies on diffusion-controlled reactions have been
124: performed for infinite systems without boundaries and a variety of
125: methods have been developed to do the analysis. The methods range from
126: mean field treatments towards more exact approaches which employ
127: quantum spin-chains~\cite{spinchains}, field theory~\cite{KJ1,KJ2}, or
128: MPDF formalism~\cite{PhysRev1,PhysRev2,kotkuz,kotkuz1}. The
129: references~\onlinecite{PhysRev2,ChemRev1} are an excellent review on
130: the subject. The opposite case when reactions take place in restricted
131: geometries with reactants confined into finite size, and eventually
132: squeezed into very small volumes, is less understood. There is,
133: however, some pioneering work in this
134: area.~\cite{Khai1,Khai2,Tach1,Rama} In here, focus is on testing
135: performance of MPDF on diffusion-controlled reactions in finite
136: volumes.
137:
138: The infinite diffusion-controlled systems posses quite remarkable
139: properties. When dimensionality of the system $d$ is lower than some
140: critical dimension $d_c$ (e.g. for A+A reaction $d_c=2$~\cite{ben1},
141: and for $A+B$ $d_c=4$~\cite{ben2}) a new non-trivial sort of kinetics
142: sets in. Taking $A+B\rightarrow 0$ as an example: Classical chemical
143: kinetic rate equation for this reaction, with initial densities equal
144: and homogeneous, is given by $\dot n(t)=-\lambda n(t)^2$ where dot
145: over symbol denotes time derivative. For large time $t$ this equation
146: would predict density decay in the form of power law $n(t)\approx
147: {\cal A} t^{-\alpha}$. The amplitude of decay equals ${\cal
148: A}=1/\lambda$ and decay exponent is given by $\alpha=1$. In reality,
149: $\alpha=1$ holds only for a sufficiently high dimensionality of the
150: system when $d>4$, while for $d<4$ one has $\alpha=d/4$ and ${\cal
151: A}={\rm const} \sqrt{n_0} D^{-d/4}$, and ${\rm const}$ is just a
152: numerical factor. Please note that for $d<4$ decay amplitude ${\cal
153: A}$ does not depend on the reaction rate $\lambda$ and exhibits lack
154: of dependence on chemical details (universality).
155:
156: The kinetics of the type described above is commonly referred to as
157: {\em anomalous} or {\em fluctuation-dominated}. The term ``anomalous''
158: points to the fact that mean field (or classical rate equations) fail
159: to describe such systems. The phrase ``fluctuation-dominated''
160: emphasizes importance of fluctuations in particle densities. Once the
161: reaction creates a hole in the particle concentration, diffusion is
162: very slow in restoring the homogeneous particle density. This has to
163: do with recurrence of random walks. For $d\le 2$ probability that the
164: random walker will return to the same site after arbitrary number of
165: steps is equal to one. Random walkers tend to wander around their
166: initial position, and particles do not mix that well. Rule of thumb
167: is that for lower dimensions the kinetics gets more anomalous. Role
168: of dimensionality is well understood both for integer and
169: fractal (non-integer) like dimensions.~\cite{fractal} On the other
170: hand, much less is known what happens when one shrinks the system
171: size, which is studied here.
172:
173: To impact some progress in understanding reactions in restricted
174: geometry we analyze performance of MPDF approach and modify it to
175: account for finite reaction volume. To test such method of calculation
176: the A+B model is used as a study case. The A+B model is natural choice
177: for such a task. This model has been intensively studied for infinite
178: system
179: sizes.~\cite{kotkuz,ben2,burl1,ovch,thwil,burl2,gut,bram,oerd,mattis}
180: It was found that the A+B reaction has the remarkable property that
181: domains rich with A or B particles are formed as time goes on. Once
182: domains are formed the reactions happen only at domain boundaries
183: which leads to already mentioned decay exponent $\alpha=d/4$. It is
184: interesting to study in what way the dynamics of the system (kinetics)
185: changes as one reduces the volume available to reaction, in particular
186: whether domain-like structure survives. For simplicity reasons, the
187: one-dimensional (1d) case is studied. In the calculation that follows
188: there is nothing special about 1d and present analysis can be easily
189: extended to the two- or three- dimensional cases.
190:
191: The A+B model in restricted geometry has been studied before with the
192: assumption that one type of reactant is attached at the center of a
193: small volume, and it was further assumed that one type of particle is
194: in large excess.~\cite{Khai1,Khai2,Tach1} The more realistic problem
195: where all particles are allowed to move is much harder to solve, and
196: the goal of our study is to describe such a situation. Also, in here,
197: the focus is on the case when the initial number of reactants is the
198: same, or roughly the same. Naturally, the shape of the reaction
199: container might be important but this issue is not addressed at the
200: moment. To avoid boundaries completely, our 1d system will be closed
201: into the ring.
202:
203: The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{lattice} the model
204: is developed, {\em i.e.} detailed account is given of how particles
205: move and react. Lattice model is used due to its conceptual
206: simplicity. In section \ref{mpdf} equations of motion are derived
207: using MPDF formalism in its simplest form (pair approach). In section
208: \ref{sec:solution} equations of motion are solved analytically and it
209: is shown how multi-exponential decay emerges. The results of computer
210: experiments (Monte Carlo Simulations) are given in section
211: \ref{MCresults} followed by a comparison between theory and Monte
212: Carlo simulations in section \ref{comparison}. We conclude by
213: analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the pair-approach applied to a
214: reactions in restricted geometry in section \ref{disc}. In appendix
215: \ref{app:kt} details are given how to calculate effective reaction
216: rate $k(t)$ which determines density decay. In appendix \ref{app:MCS}
217: the algorithm used to do Monte Carlo simulations is discussed in
218: detail.
219:
220:
221:
222: \section{The lattice model}
223: \label{lattice}
224:
225: To test any theory one inevitably needs a model which serves as study
226: case. The model used here is defined as follows. The two species, A
227: and B, move on a 1d lattice performing random jumps with rates
228: (diffusion constants) $D_A$ and $D_B$ respectively. It is assumed that
229: $D_A=D_B$. Position of lattice sites is given by $x_i=i h$ with
230: $i=0,1,2,3,\cdots,M$ and $h$ denotes lattice spacing. Sometimes, $x$
231: and $y$ will be used instead of $x_i$. Periodic boundary conditions
232: are assumed and sites $i=0$ and $i=M$ are defined to be
233: equivalent. There are M lattice sites in total and $L=M h$. By using
234: periodic boundary conditions it is possible to work with a system of
235: finite size and yet keep the spatial translational invariance. This
236: greatly facilitates the analytical treatment of the problem.
237:
238: It is assumed that the reaction probability (per unit time) for
239: particle $A$ at $x$ and $B$ at $y$ is given by $\sigma(x-y)$. For
240: $\sigma(x-y)$ simplest possible form is used
241: %
242: \begin{equation}
243: \sigma(x-y)=\sigma_0 \theta(a-|x-y|).
244: \label{sigma}
245: \end{equation}
246: %
247: where $\theta(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and $\theta(x)=1$ for $x\ge 0$. In this
248: way two important aspects of chemical reactions are embedded, $a$
249: corresponds to the effective range of reaction and $\sigma_0$ is its
250: strength. One could also say that each particle carries a ring of
251: radius $a/2$ and when two rings overlap the particles can react. In
252: this sense $a/2$ could be thought of as the size (radius) of
253: particles. For simplicity reasons it is assumed that the reaction
254: products do neither influence reactants, nor the A+B reaction. Also,
255: exclusion or steric effects are not taken into account, {\em i.e.}
256: particles are allowed to ``enter'' into each other (please see Fig. 1)
257: and react with same probability independently from which direction
258: they approach each other.
259:
260: The model has the useful property that if $a$ is thought of as the
261: size of reactants, then by varying $a$ several interesting situations
262: can be studied. For example, when $a$ is on the order of the system
263: size $L$, one can think of situations of extreme crowding. On the
264: other hand when $a\ll L$ reactants appear as point-like objects. In
265: Fig. \ref{fig4} we offer a schematic way how to think about these
266: situations. The model presented above is solved analytically and
267: numerically by a Monte Carlo simulation in the following sections.
268:
269:
270:
271:
272: \section{Equations of motion in pair approximation}
273: \label{mpdf}
274:
275: To solve the A+B reaction-diffusion model in a restricted geometry we
276: use a many-particle-density-function formalism (MPDF), since it was
277: already used to describe asymptotics of the same reaction in an
278: infinite volume.~\cite{PhysRev1,PhysRev2,kotkuz,kotkuz1} We modify the
279: formalism and apply it to the case of a restricted geometry. In the
280: following the formulation presented in ref~\onlinecite{PhysRev1} will
281: be closely followed. On the way, the changes made to the original
282: formalism will be discussed.
283:
284: The dynamics of the system, as defined in previous section, is
285: stochastic and governed by Master Equation which
286: describes time evolution of configurational probabilities of the
287: system $P(c,t)$,
288: %
289: \begin{equation}
290: \dot P(c,t) = \sum_{c'}
291: \left[
292: W_{c'\rightarrow c} P(c',t) -
293: W_{c\rightarrow c'} P(c,t)
294: \right]
295: \label{ME}
296: \end{equation}
297: %
298: where $c$ is short notation for occupancy of lattice sites and
299: $W_{c\rightarrow c'}$ are transition probabilities which can easily be
300: deduced from the previous description of the model. Here and
301: throughout the paper dot over symbol denotes time derivative.
302:
303: The quantities of interest are particle densities $\rho_A(x,t)$ and
304: $\rho_B(x,t)$ and they can be calculated from $P(c,t)$ (at least in
305: principle). Since system is closed into a ring translational
306: invariance holds and concentrations cease to be position dependent
307: which leads to $\rho_A(x,t)=n_A(t)$ and $\rho_B(x,t)=n_B(t)$.
308: Following recipe in ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1} gives following equations for
309: $n_A$ and $n_B$,
310: %
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: & & \dot n_A(t) = - n_A(t) n_B(t) \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \sigma(x) Y(x,t)
313: \label{dotnA} \\
314: & & \dot n_B(t) = - n_A(t) n_B(t) \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dx \sigma(x) Y(x,t)
315: \label{dotnB}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: %
318: The $Y(x,t)$ denotes correlation function for AB pairs. Absence of
319: correlations is signaled by $Y(x,t)=1$. Please note that in this work
320: system size is finite which enters through finite integration domain
321: in the integrals above (it might appear as minor technical detail but
322: this fact is very important). Also, it is assumed that reversal
323: symmetry holds, i.e. $Y(x,t)=Y(-x,t)$.
324:
325: Again, following ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1} one can derive equation for
326: $Y(x,t)$ which is given by
327: %
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: & & \dot Y(x,t) =
330: (D_A+D_B) Y''(x,t) - \sigma(x) Y(x,t) \nonumber \\
331: & & - n_B Y(x,t) \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dy \sigma(y) Y(y,t)
332: \left[ X_B(x-y,t) - 1 \right] \nonumber \\
333: & & - n_A Y(x,t) \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} dy \sigma(y) Y(y,t)
334: \left[ X_A(x-y,t) - 1 \right]
335: \label{dotY}
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: %
338: where prime denotes spatial derivative, and $X_A(x,t)$ and $X_B(x,t)$
339: correlation functions for AA and BB pairs respectively. The $X_A(x,t)$
340: and $X_B(x,t)$ obey similar equations which are not given here to
341: save the space.
342:
343: The equations (\ref{dotnA})-(\ref{dotY}) are derived under assumption
344: of Kirkwood superposition approximation, which is a technical way of
345: saying that dynamics is governed by pair effects. Naturally,
346: assumption of the dominance of pairs effects is an approximation. It
347: might or might not work, and the goal of present study is to test
348: this. In the following, to make analytic treatment possible, equations
349: will be simplified further by setting $X_A(x,t)$ and $X_B(x,t)$ equal
350: to one. This amounts to ignoring correlations among AA and BB
351: pairs. In ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1} it was shown that (for infinite
352: reaction volume) such approximation is too severe and does not lead to
353: correct decay exponent $\alpha=d/4$ (it gives
354: $\alpha=d/2$). Nevertheless, in here we consider such
355: simplification. The validity of such an approximation, together with
356: the fact that we are using Kirkwood approximation, is tested via
357: computer experiment later on.
358:
359: The form of boundary conditions for $Y(x,t)$ differs from the one used
360: in ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1}. In the case of infinite system one takes
361: %
362: \begin{equation}
363: Y(x,t)\rightarrow 1 \ , \ \ x\rightarrow\infty
364: \label{XYinf}
365: \end{equation}
366: %
367: while for finite system with periodic boundary conditions another form
368: has to be used
369: %
370: \begin{equation}
371: Y(x+L,t) = Y(x,t) \label{XYfin}
372: \end{equation}
373: %
374: It will be shown later that the change from (\ref{XYinf}) to
375: (\ref{XYfin}) leads to a qualitative change from power law to (multi)
376: exponential behavior for correlation dynamics. The rest of the
377: boundary conditions are standard, and are taken as in the case of an
378: infinite system size,
379: %
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: & & n_A(0) = n_0 \label{nA0} \\
382: & & n_B(0) = n_0 \label{nB0} \\
383: & & Y(x,0) = 1 \label{XY0}
384: \end{eqnarray}
385: %
386: Also, taking $L\rightarrow\infty$ should reproduce findings of
387: ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1}, within set of approximations employed
388: here.
389:
390:
391:
392: \section{Emergence of multi-exponential density decay}
393: \label{sec:solution}
394:
395: With assumptions $X_A=X_B=1$ Eq.~(\ref{dotY}) reduces to
396: %
397: \begin{equation}
398: \dot Y(x,t) =
399: (D_A+D_B) Y''(x,t)
400: - \sigma(x) Y(x,t) \label{dotYsm}
401: \end{equation}
402: %
403: Eq.~(\ref{dotYsm}) is solved by using a Laplace transform as shown in
404: the appendix \ref{app:kt}. To simplify the algebra, it is assumed that
405: $\sigma_0$ is arbitrary large. The exponential behavior emerges due to
406: the fact that the spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{dotYsm}) is discrete due to
407: particular nature of the boundary conditions. The final expression for
408: $k(t)$ reads
409: %
410: \begin{equation}
411: k(t) = k_{reg}(t) + 2 a \delta(t)
412: \label{kt}
413: \end{equation}
414: %
415: and details of calculation are given in the appendix \ref{app:kt}.
416: The regular part of $k(t)$ is given by
417: %
418: \begin{equation}
419: k_{reg}(t) = \frac{8D}{L-2a}\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} e^{-\kappa_mDt}
420: \label{kreg}
421: \end{equation}
422: %
423: and $\kappa_m$ are constants of multi-exponential decay (eigenvalues),
424: %
425: \begin{equation}
426: \kappa_m = \pi^2 \left( \frac{2m-1}{L-2a} \right)^2
427: \label{kappam}
428: \end{equation}
429: %
430: The $\delta$-function term in (\ref{kt}) arises from the second term
431: on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{ks}) when
432: $\sigma_0\rightarrow\infty$ (please see the appendix \ref{app:kt}).
433:
434: Once $k(t)$ is available one can calculate $n(t)$ as
435: %
436: \begin{equation}
437: n(t) = \frac{n_0}{1+I(t)n_0+2 a n_0}
438: \label{nt}
439: \end{equation}
440: %
441: where $I(t)=\int_0^t dt' k_{reg}(t')$ and
442: %
443: \begin{equation}
444: I(t) = \frac{8}{L-2a}
445: \sum_{m=1}^\infty\frac{1}{\kappa_m}
446: \left( 1 - e^{ -\kappa_m D t } \right)
447: \label{It}
448: \end{equation}
449: %
450: The $2an_0$ term in the denominator of (\ref{nt}) comes from the
451: $\delta(t)$ term in Eq.~(\ref{kt}). It describes the immediate
452: annihilation of particles which are within reaction range. When
453: $\sigma_0\rightarrow\infty$, this happens instantaneously. Thus there
454: is a sudden jump in particle concentration. For finite $\sigma_0$
455: this jump becomes a smooth transition (exponential decay with decay
456: exponent proportional to large number $\sigma_0$).
457:
458: The question is whether one can obtain results for an infinite system
459: from the Eq.~(\ref{nt}) above. This can be done using Poisson
460: resummation formula when $Dt/(\frac{L}{2}-a)^2\ll 1$. The Poisson
461: resummation procedure gives $I(t)\sim t^{1/2}$ which results in the
462: wrong exponent for the density decay; $n(t)\sim t^{-1/2}$ instead of
463: correct $n(t)\sim t^{-1/4}$. Thus we just reconfirm the well known
464: fact that for infinite systems, the pair approach predicts too fast
465: decay of particles. However, for finite systems, the situation is not
466: that clear, it appears to depend on the type of initial conditions the
467: real system is subject to.
468:
469: In here we consider two types of initial conditions. (i) When
470: initially there is an equal number of A and B particles, one has
471: $n\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$; and at the end all particles
472: have to annihilate. (ii) One can look at an ensemble of similar
473: systems with equal number of A and B particles at $t=0$ on average,
474: $\langle N_{0,A}\rangle = \langle N_{0,B} \rangle$. In such a case,
475: one has different asymptotics, $\langle N(t) \rangle\rightarrow
476: N(\infty)$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
477:
478: Theoretical prediction is that, as time goes to infinity, the particle
479: density exponentially approaches the value $n_{th}(\infty)$;
480: %
481: \begin{equation}
482: n_{th}(\infty)=\frac{n_0}{1+n_0L}
483: \label{nthassy}
484: \end{equation}
485: %
486: The value for $n_{th}(\infty)$ above can be obtained by sending
487: $t\rightarrow\infty$ in Eqs.~(\ref{nt}) and (\ref{It}). From
488: (\ref{nthassy}) one sees that asymptotically number of particles is
489: given by
490: %
491: \begin{equation}
492: N_{th}(\infty)=N_0/(1+N_0)
493: \label{Nthassy}
494: \end{equation}
495: %
496: where $N_{th}(\infty)=Ln_{th}(\infty)$. Please note that
497: $N_{th}(\infty)$ never approaches zero and settles at a number between
498: zero and one. In the case of type (i) initial conditions, all
499: particles annihilate and $N(\infty)=0$. This is clearly in
500: contradiction with Eq.~(\ref{nthassy}). However, situation is not that
501: hopeless, as will be discussed later. For the type (ii) initial
502: condition, for each member in ensemble there is a chance that more
503: than one particle will be left, since one start dynamics with (random)
504: excess of A or B particles at $t=0$. Thus, in average, $\langle
505: N(\infty) \rangle$ will be larger than 0. Clearly, pair approach has
506: more chance to describe this situation correctly.
507:
508: In summary, we find an exponential decay in the long time limit which
509: is a pure artifact of the finites of the system. There is a clear
510: indication that the quality of prediction depends on the type of
511: initial conditions used in experiment. Also, the approximations made
512: in deriving Eq.~(\ref{nt}) are rather severe and in order to check the
513: applicability of such a pair-approach Monte Carlo simulation is used.
514:
515:
516:
517: \section{Results of Monte Carlo simulations of A+B reaction
518: in restricted geometry}
519: \label{MCresults}
520:
521: Figures \ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}, and \ref{fig3} summarize the results
522: of the Monte Carlo simulations in $d=1$. The Monte Carlo algorithm is
523: described in detail in appendix \ref{app:MCS}. Figure \ref{fig1} shows
524: a simulation for a system with a large initial number of particles
525: with a varying reaction range from a nearest-neighbor interaction with
526: $a/L=0.0001$ towards a longer range with $a/L=0.02$. Figure
527: \ref{fig2} shows the case when there are initially very few (exactly
528: 10=5A+5B) particles present in the reaction volume, also with varying
529: reaction ranges from $a/L=0.001$ to $a/L=0.2$. Thus figures \ref{fig1}
530: and \ref{fig2} give simulation results for type (i) initial
531: condition. Figure \ref{fig3} deals with type (ii) initial condition,
532: when the initial number of particles in an ensemble varies with the
533: constrain that the sum of A and B particles equals $10$. (For example,
534: one run could be done with 7A and 3B, the other run with 5A and 5B,
535: and a third run with 4A and 6B particles, etc.) Figure \ref{fig4} is a
536: sketch of how to think of various situations when $a$ changes from
537: small to large values.
538:
539: From figure \ref{fig1} it can be seen that in the case of the nearest
540: neighbor reaction range ($a=1$) four distinct regimes appear and the
541: log-log plot is used to reveal them; (a) mean field decay, (b) the
542: plateau region (c) power law decay and (d) exponential decay at the
543: end. These regimes disappear as the reaction range is increased, and
544: eventually, for very large $a$, one only has the exponential regime.
545:
546: The mean field regime corresponds to annihilation of particles with
547: all reactants being well mixed. This leads to depletion of lattice to
548: concentration of the order $n\sim 1/a$, thus one particle per reaction
549: range. Then diffusion starts to operate and mixes particles. What is
550: interesting is that for very large values of $a$, the plateau region
551: starts earlier and lasts longer. Apparently, it takes some time
552: before the particles find each other by diffusion and start reacting
553: again.
554:
555: The power law decay starts after the plateau region. There is
556: universality in the power-law regime since all curves with different
557: values of $a$ merge into one. This is somewhat surprising since a
558: larger $a$ should mean faster annihilation, which indeed happens in
559: the mean field regime, but yet in the power law stage all curves share
560: the same power-law behavior. We speculate that this has to do with
561: self organization and build up of correlation.
562:
563: The exponential regime is entered after the power law regime, when the
564: number of particles in the system becomes small. With the present
565: computer hardware it was not possible to resolve this exponential
566: regime better. This is indeed done in figure \ref{fig2} with a smaller
567: lattice size and lower particle number.
568:
569: To illuminate this exponential decay at later stages of annihilation,
570: we performed simulations with a smaller number of particles (10=5A+5B)
571: on a smaller lattice with $10^3$ sites. Thus we used type (i) initial
572: condition. To obtain each curve we followed 1000-3000 realizations of
573: dynamics and averaged over such an ensemble. The result is shown in
574: figure \ref{fig2}. The upper figure is in log-$t$ scale to resolve the
575: small and large $t$ region, respectively. The lower figure is in
576: normal-$t$ scale and we use it to detect exponential decay (where a
577: straight line indicates exponential decay).
578:
579: The crossover from mean-field to plateau-like dynamics can be seen in
580: the upper graph where all curves drop down to a plateau value which is
581: $a$-dependent. The theoretical prediction for this plateau is
582: $n(0^+)=n_0/(1+2 a n_0 )$. The initial drop in concentration is large
583: for large $a$-values. In the upper figure, it is hard to say when the plateau
584: behavior turns into exponential decay.
585:
586: The lower graph shows that decay is indeed exponential since density
587: curves at late times are straight lines in the log$_{10}(n)$-$t$
588: plot. Thus at the late times $n\sim{\rm exp}(-\kappa_1 t)$. Also, the
589: decay constant $\kappa_1$ is $a$-dependent since slopes are different
590: for various values of $a$, and $\kappa_1$ becomes larger with larger
591: $a$. Also, it appears that there is an upper limit for $a$ at which
592: decay becomes infinitely fast. Naturally, this happens when $a=L/2$
593: since none of the particles can escape from each other. The
594: qualitative dependence of $\kappa_1$ on $a$ just discussed is in
595: agreement with theoretical prediction in Eq.~(\ref{kappam}) with
596: $m=1$.
597:
598: %In refs.~\onlinecite{Khai1,Khai2} an approximate formula for the exponent
599: %$\kappa_1(a)$ was found for the case when one particle is fixed at the
600: %center and the other particles move. In here, we concentrate on
601: %a completely different situation where all particles move and there is
602: %an equal amount of them either exactly or on average.
603:
604: Figure \ref{fig3} is obtained in a similar way as figure
605: \ref{fig1}. The only difference is that figure \ref{fig3} deals with
606: the type (ii) initial condition. For the particular run, when
607: $N_{0,A}\ne N_{0,B}$, the final number of particles in the system is
608: not zero. For example, when starting from 7A and 3B particles, the
609: system will end up in the state of 4A particles. This comes from that
610: fact that the A+B reaction conserves the particle difference
611: $N_A(t)-N_B(t)=const$. Curves for different values of $a$ saturate at
612: one single value which is, independent of $a$. Clearly, the value of
613: the plateau is solely controlled by the excess of particles at $t=0$,
614: and can be calculated from theory if needed, but result of Monte Carlo
615: simulation is equally informative.
616:
617: \section{Comparison of computer experiment and theory}
618: \label{comparison}
619:
620: Figure \ref{fig5} shows a comparison of the analytical treatment with
621: computer experiment (simulation parameters as in figure
622: \ref{fig2}). It can be seen that the pair (Smoluchowskii) approach
623: does not predict that the number of particles in the system should
624: approach zero. The reasons for this are discussed later but have to do
625: with the fact that we are looking at highly symmetric situation with
626: equal number of A and B particles all the time. To enforce such zero
627: asymptotics by hand we use interpolation formula
628: %
629: \begin{equation}
630: n_{int}(t) = n(t) - n(\infty)(1-e^{-\kappa_1 t})
631: \label{nint}
632: \end{equation}
633: %
634: where $\kappa_1$ is the first dominant large time exponent in expression
635: for $k(t)$ (see Eqs.~\ref{nt} and \ref{It}). It can be easily seen
636: that the equation above holds exactly for $t=0$ and $t=\infty$. If
637: Eq.~(\ref{nint}) is used instead of (\ref{nt}) the agreement with
638: simulation improves in the sense that the decay is exponential and
639: the qualitatively theoretical exponent is roughly the same as the one
640: obtained from simulations. More work is in progress to develop improved
641: interpolation formulas.
642:
643: Figure \ref{fig6} deals with the same type of comparison, but with a
644: simulation setup as in figure \ref{fig3} when the initial number of
645: particles is not fixed, just the total number (type (ii) initial
646: condition). One can see that the agreement between theory and
647: simulation is much better. Clearly, Smoluchowskii theory deals better
648: with the type (ii) initial condition represented by the figure
649: \ref{fig3} than by the type (i) represented by the figure
650: \ref{fig2}. Also, in figure \ref{fig6}, one can see that theory
651: predicts too fast particle annihilation. This is no surprise since
652: this is what one would expect form such pair approach which does not
653: take into account formation of domains. (In that respect there is
654: similarity with infinite systems, but only for the type (ii) initial
655: condition).
656:
657:
658: \section{Discussion}
659: \label{disc}
660:
661: The goal of present work was to impact some understanding of
662: diffusion-controlled reactions in restricted geometries, with aim to
663: describe some aspects of chemical reactions in biological cells. Two
664: issues have been dealt with:
665:
666: (1) The particular way of doing calculation was tested, the MPDF
667: formalism developed by Kuzovkov and Kotomin (see ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1}
668: for details). To be able to solve equations analytically the hierarchy
669: of many-particle-densities was truncated at the level of
670: three-particle-density using shortened Kirkwood superposition
671: approximation. This approximation amounts to assuming that pair
672: effects dominate correlations, and present calculation can be viewed
673: as a variant of pair approach.
674:
675: (2) A two species reaction-diffusion model $A+B\rightarrow 0$ in a
676: restricted geometry was taken as a study case. Two types of initial
677: conditions were considered, type (i) where the initial number of A and
678: B particles is strictly equal, and type (ii) initial conditions where
679: the initial number of particles is equal only approximatively.
680:
681: Thus the paper is best viewed as a method paper since the main goal is
682: to test the strengths and weaknesses of the pair approach. To test
683: quality of approximations involved all results have been compared with
684: the results of computer experiment (Monte Carlo simulation).
685:
686: From a theoretical point of view, it seems that the pair method, being
687: widely used in calculation of bulk properties, works with mixed
688: success for the restricted reaction diffusion systems, at least the
689: one studied in here. The agreement between theoretical calculation and
690: computer experiment is qualitative in the case of type (ii) initial
691: conditions. In the case of type (i) initial conditions there is less
692: agreement, however, situation is not that hopeless.
693:
694: In the case of type (i) initial conditions pair approach makes error
695: of the order of one particle (please see Eq.~\ref{Nthassy}), since it
696: predicts that, in the average, after very long time, there will be
697: between zero and one particle in the system (though all particles
698: should vanish). When initial number of particles is
699: relatively large, the pair approach can describe evolution of system
700: for rather long time, before the regime is reached where only one
701: particle is left in the reaction volume. However, in the case of
702: small initial number of particles, there is no such time interval, and
703: the mismatch between pair approach and simulation has to be addressed
704: more seriously.
705:
706: The weakness of pair approach in dealing with type (i) initial
707: condition rests on the fact that the truncated set of equations for
708: many-particle-densities do not recognize any effects which go beyond
709: pair correlations. For example, in the present case, all information
710: related to the fact that initially there were 5A and 5B particles in
711: the system, and that all particles have to vanish eventually, is
712: missing. Work is in progress to pass such type of information from
713: higher order particle-density-functions to lower order ones. For
714: example, we already have better interpolation scheme than the one
715: given in Eq.~(\ref{nint}) for the case when there are initially three
716: particles in the system, but we are trying to understand how to extend
717: such analysis to higher numbers.
718:
719: Interestingly enough, it seems that, contrary to the systems with
720: infinite sizes, setting $X_A(x,t)=X_B(x,t)=1$ is reasonable
721: approximation for a finite system, but we have to perform more tests.
722: This could have to do with the fact that if the system is too small,
723: there will be no time to develop clusters of A and B particles, and
724: setting $X_A(x,t)=1$ and $X_B(x,t)=1$ might turn to be a good
725: approximation after all. Thus, one does not have to turn to more
726: complicated methods of calculation if qualitative results are needed.
727: Nevertheless, it is highly desirable to see what happens as one
728: includes correlations among AA and BB pairs.
729:
730:
731: To be able to solve equations analytically, we had to simplify MPDF
732: considerably down to the level of a pair like approach and various
733: calculation schemes contain pair approach as possible
734: approximation. Perhaps the most common form of pair approach is the
735: one suggested by Smoluchowskii (see e.g. ref.~\onlinecite{PhysRev2} for
736: interesting review). The Smoluchowskii approach boils down to solution
737: of Poisson equation with different boundary conditions. (Many readers
738: will be familiar with this in the context of heat transfer or quantum
739: mechanical problems.)
740:
741: However, one has to keep in mind that pair approach is an
742: approximation, and it has to be tested to see whether it works. (For
743: example, the pair approach can not describe A+B reaction-diffusion
744: model when system size is very large. This has been discussed in
745: ref.~\onlinecite{kotkuz}.) The advantage of pair approach, in the form used
746: here, is that it is possible to go beyond it in a systematic way.
747:
748: Also, from the particular way we have approached pair problem, one can
749: see that the difficulties associated with Eq.~(\ref{Nthassy}) are
750: likely to be much deeper than just the fact that we are using pair
751: approach. (This problem clearly vanishes when system size is infinite,
752: as $n_{th}(\infty)$ goes to zero.) Any scheme which focuses on low
753: rank particle-density-function will suffer in a similar way, in the
754: case of the highly symmetric, e.g. type (i), initial condition. One
755: really has to find a way how to incorporate information of higher
756: order correlation functions into lower order ones, without calculating
757: higher order correlations functions explicitly. This is a pressing
758: issue.
759:
760: A few words about the model used. The goal of present work is to
761: develop calculation method rather than to describe specific chemical
762: system. We used the model which we could solve, within reasonable
763: level of approximation. Nevertheless, the question whether present
764: model has any relevance for real biological and chemical systems needs
765: to be addressed.
766:
767: The reaction diffusion model studied here appears to be too simple,
768: for two reasons. First, it does not account for chemical details which
769: enter only through two parameters, diffusion constant $D$ and reaction
770: rate $\lambda$. For example, the exclusion effects and steric effects
771: are not contained in it. Also, the influence of product molecule is
772: completely ignored. Second, 1d character of the model might be too
773: restrictive.
774:
775: Despite its simplicity, the model used here contains basic
776: characteristics of diffusion-controlled reactions (reaction times
777: $t_R$ are much smaller than the corresponding diffusion times $t_D$);
778: particles are moving on the on the lattice and react when within
779: reaction range with no memory of initially velocity. Previous
780: research reviewed in refs.~\onlinecite{PhysRev1,PhysRev2} has shown
781: that diffusion-controlled models, similar to the one used here, can be
782: used to describe real chemical reactions. In particular, the A+B model
783: have been used to study two reactions in capillary tube quite
784: successfully, bromine + cyclohexene $\rightarrow$ adduct, and
785: Cu$^{2+}$ + disodium ethyl bis(5-tertrazolylazo)acetate trihydrate
786: $\rightarrow$ 1:1 complex in water.~\cite{Kopelman}
787:
788: Why can one be sloppy and ignore chemical details to some extent? The
789: reason for this is universality. Most often, predictions of the
790: reaction-diffusion models (on lattice) are insensitive to the details
791: of the chemistry involved. (For example, the decay amplitude for A+B
792: reaction does not depend on the reaction rate $\lambda$.) This
793: statement is valid provided one deals with very large system sizes.
794: Naturally, this view is not the only one. There are other ways to
795: approach diffusion-controlled reactions. For more chemical or
796: biological approach to diffusion-controlled reactions see
797: refs.~\onlinecite{ChemRev1,ChemRev2} and~\onlinecite{BiolRev}
798: respectively.
799:
800: The simplicity of the model is not necessarily such a big handicap,
801: until one reaches extremely small sizes. For small system sizes,
802: density decay will start depending on details. However, there is a
803: large window in system sizes between extremely large and extremely
804: small where such kind of universality could survive. In here we push
805: the model over its borders by studying situation of extreme crowding
806: and not accounting for exclusion effects.
807:
808: Furthermore, we would like to notify the reader that we do refer to
809: the model here as a ``toy'' model, it relatively simple to formulate
810: it. However, this does not mean that the model is easy to solve, quite
811: the contrary. In the case of infinite system size it has taken a lot
812: of research effort to clarify that the decay exponent indeed is
813: $d/4$. This issue was finally settled in ref.~\onlinecite{bram} which
814: provides a strict mathematical proof.
815:
816: The model has a potential to describe experiments in
817: refs.~\onlinecite{Chiu1,Chiu2,Karl1} where, for example, the average
818: diameter of the reaction container (liposome) is $L\sim 1-25 \mu
819: m$. The reactants A (enzyme) and B (substrate) are of the size of
820: $a_{E},a_{S}\sim 1 nm$ and the typical number of reactants inserted is
821: on the order of $N\sim 1000$. Thus, $a\ll L$ holds to a very good
822: approximation. In these experiments reactants appear as point-like
823: objects and there is no need to give structure to reactants. Also,
824: problems associated with Eq.~(\ref{Nthassy}) will likely not to case
825: any damage due to large number of particles at $t=0$.
826:
827: From the data above, the concentration of particles $n_{A,B}\sim
828: N/L^3$, is easily estimated to be $n\sim 1 \mu m^{-3}$, and the
829: typical distance between particles is $d_{AB}\approx 1/c^{1/3} \approx
830: L/N^{1/3} \sim 0.1 \mu m$. Thus, in average, $a_{S,E}\ll d_{AB}$, and
831: particles are very well separated. Therefore, it is reasonable to
832: assume that pair effects are the dominant ones. This in turn
833: simplifies the theoretical description considerably. Clearly, there
834: are other scales in the problem and the criteria on applicability of
835: the pair approach are more subtle in reality.~\cite{PhysRev2,kotkuz}
836:
837: To summarize, it would be extremely interesting to have a general
838: method of calculation which could describe diffusion-controlled
839: reactions in finite volumes, perhaps something on the level of the
840: pair approach. Pair approach is attractive since inclusion of
841: chemical details such as exclusion or steric effects is possible (see
842: e.g. work in ref.~\onlinecite{steric}) which certainly opens a new
843: route towards more quantitative results. However, pair approach is an
844: approximation, and before burdening pair approach with increasing
845: amount of chemical details, one has to test its ultimate
846: reach. Present work is an attempt in this direction.
847:
848:
849:
850: \appendix
851:
852: \section{Derivation of the reaction rate $\lowercase{k(t)}$}
853: \label{app:kt}
854:
855: With initial condition $Y(x,0)=1$, the Laplace transform of
856: (\ref{dotYsm}) becomes
857: %
858: \begin{equation}
859: s Y(x,s) - 1 = (D_A+D_B) Y''(x,s) - \sigma(x)Y(x,s)
860: \label{dotYsm1d}
861: \end{equation}
862: %
863: The correlation functions are symmetric around origin,
864: i.e. $Y(x,t)=Y(-x,t)$. They are also periodic in $L$. This implies that
865: it is sufficient to focus on positive x axis and impose boundary
866: conditions $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}Y(x,s) =0$ for $x=0$ and
867: $x=L/2$. Equation (\ref{dotYsm1d}) is an ordinary second order
868: differential equation, which is easily solved by solving it in regions
869: $0<x<a$ and $a<x<L/2$ separately and then matching solutions at the
870: end. After some algebra one obtains
871: %
872: \begin{eqnarray}
873: & & Y_1(x,s) = \frac{1}{D}
874: \left( \frac{1}{\nu}-\frac{1}{\mu} \right) \times \nonumber \\
875: & & \ \ \ \times \frac{
876: {\rm ch}(x\sqrt{\mu})
877: }{
878: {\rm ch}(a\sqrt{\mu})
879: + \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\nu}}
880: {\rm sh}(a\sqrt{\mu}) \rm{ch}[ \sqrt{\nu}(\frac{L}{2}-a) ]
881: }
882: + \frac{1}{D\mu}
883: \end{eqnarray}
884: %
885: and
886: %
887: \begin{eqnarray}
888: & & Y_2(x,s) = \frac{1}{D}
889: \left( \frac{1}{\mu}-\frac{1}{\nu} \right) \times \nonumber \\
890: & & \ \ \ \times \frac{
891: {\rm ch}[(\frac{L}{2}-x)\sqrt{\nu}]
892: }{
893: {\rm ch}[(\frac{L}{2}-a)\sqrt{\nu}]
894: + \sqrt{\frac{\nu}{\mu}}
895: {\rm sh}[(\frac{L}{2}-a)\sqrt{\nu}] {\rm ch}(a\sqrt{\mu})
896: } + \nonumber \\
897: & & \ \ \ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{D\nu}
898: \end{eqnarray}
899: %
900: where $Y(x,s)=Y_1(x,s)$ for $0\le x \le a$ and $Y(x,s)=Y_2(x,s)$ for
901: $a\le x\le L/2$ with $\mu=(s+\sigma_0)/D$ and $\nu=s/D$. The reaction
902: rate $k(s)$ is given by $k(s)=2 \sigma_0 \int_0^a dx Y_1(x,s)$ and
903: equals
904: %
905: \begin{eqnarray}
906: & k(s) & = \frac{2\sigma_0}{D}
907: \left( \frac{1}{\nu}-\frac{1}{\mu} \right)
908: \frac{{\rm sh}(a\sqrt{\mu})}{\sqrt{\mu}} \times \nonumber \\
909: & & \times \frac{
910: {\rm ch}(x\sqrt{\mu})
911: }{
912: {\rm ch}(a\sqrt{\mu})
913: + \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\nu}}
914: {\rm sh}(a\sqrt{\mu}) {\rm ch}[ \sqrt{\nu}(\frac{L}{2}-a) ]
915: }
916: + \frac{2\sigma_0}{D\mu}
917: \end{eqnarray}
918: %
919: We could not find the inverse Laplace transform of the expression above in
920: closed analytic form. However, this is possible when
921: $\sigma_0\rightarrow\infty$. In such a case one has
922: %
923: \begin{equation}
924: k(s) \approx 2 \sqrt{\frac{D}{s}} \frac{1}{{\rm cth}[(L/2-a)
925: \sqrt{\frac{s}{D}}]} +
926: \frac{2\sigma_0a}{\sigma_0+s} + {\cal O}(1/\sigma_0)
927: \label{ks}
928: \end{equation}
929:
930: %
931: The inverse Laplace transform of the approximate expression for $k(s)$ can
932: be found by a residuum method. The $s=0$ is not a branching point nor
933: pole. The only poles come from $cosh$ term in denominator which has
934: poles at $s_m=-\pi^2(m-1/2)^2D/(L/2-a)^2$. This fully fixes form of
935: $k(t)$ in Eq.~(\ref{kt}).
936:
937:
938:
939: \section{Computer Experiment via Monte Carlo Simulations}
940: \label{app:MCS}
941:
942: We have chosen the minimal process algorithm for the simulations for
943: two reasons. The first reason is that the algorithm reproduces the
944: master equation (\ref{ME}).~\cite{HB} Second, our goal is to study a
945: whole range of particle sizes and relatively large numbers of
946: particles at the same time. Clearly, there are another possibilities
947: to carry out Monte Carlo simulation, but the main advantage of the
948: minimal process algorithm is that it can be applied for systems
949: containing relatively large number of particles. An original algorithm
950: was devised for the situation where $a\sim h$, i.e. particles react at
951: the same lattice site or when nearest neighbors. We had to modify the
952: original version of the algorithm to account for finite reaction range
953: when $a\gg h$. A detailed description of the algorithm is given
954: bellow.
955:
956: {\noindent\bf Algorithm:}
957: %
958: \begin{itemize}
959: %
960: \item[(1)] Site $i$ is chosen at random.
961: %
962: \item[(2)] If the site is empty go to step (5).
963: %
964: \item[(3)] For a chosen site $i$, one has to calculate the rate $W_i$
965: for a certain process to occur (diffusion or reaction). Also, one
966: needs a null rate $N_i$ where nothing happens (the so called ``null
967: process''). The null rate is defined from $W_i+N_i=Q$, where $Q$ is
968: arbitrary but known at each simulation step. $Q$ is chosen in such a
969: way that none of the $N_i$ is negative. In practise, the case when $Q$
970: is taken as the largest of $W_i$ works best since this leads to the
971: smallest possible values for $N_i$, {\em i.e.} chance that nothing is
972: done in course of simulation is reduced. (Please note that this
973: requires that $Q$ is updated as simulation proceeds, but can be done
974: in a straight forward manner as explained in ref.~\onlinecite{HB})
975:
976: $W_i=D_i+R_i$ accounts for possibilities that a particle at the site
977: diffuses to the neighboring site with rate $D_i$, or reacts with a
978: particle in some other site with rate $R_i= \sum_{j\in\Omega_i}
979: \sigma(r_{ij})$. $\Omega_i$ denotes set of sites which are within
980: reaction range of the site $i$. The calculation of $R_i$ is by far the
981: most costly step when $a$ is large. In that case, a large region has
982: to be searched in order to find all particles within $\Omega_i$. This
983: step costs $M_{search}\sim (a/h)^d$ computational steps if the sites
984: are checked one by one. The cost can be reduced further by introducing
985: a list which specifies which sites that contain particles within the
986: reaction range of the particle at site $i$. In that case one has to
987: update the list for each diffusion step made. The best algorithm we
988: have so far updates the list in roughly $M_{serach}\sim (a/h)^{d-1}$
989: steps.
990: %
991: \item[(4)] Once the rates for the site $i$ have been calculated one
992: can use them to evaluate probabilities for specific process
993: $p^{(D)}=D_i/Q$, $p^{(R)}=R_i/Q$ and $p^{(null)}=N/Q$. Once the
994: probabilities are calculated a certain process is chosen by linear
995: selection algorithm. First one decides if diffusion, reaction or
996: nothing is going to happen. If diffusion is to happen then the particle is
997: moved to one of the randomly chosen $2\times d$ nearest neighbors. If
998: reaction was chosen, then one of the sites containing particles in
999: reaction range is chosen at random, {\em e.g.} at site $j$, and pair
1000: of particles from site $i$ and $j$ are annihilated.
1001: %
1002: \item[(5)] Time is updated according to the formula $t\rightarrow
1003: t+\Delta t$ where $\Delta t=1/L Q$ where $L$ was specified before and
1004: $Q$ is the maximum rate at the present step.
1005: %
1006: \item[(6)] Move back to (1) unless some criteria to stop is invoked.
1007: %
1008: \end{itemize}
1009:
1010: Applying the same type of reasoning as in ref.~\onlinecite{HB} one can see
1011: that the algorithm proposed here reproduces the behavior described by
1012: the master equation (\ref{ME}). As time of the simulation progresses
1013: we monitor the number of particles and calculate all the statistics.
1014:
1015: As the original minimal process algorithm, the present simulation
1016: method is not that efficient at the later stages of dynamics when the
1017: lattice becomes sparse. The quantity that governs computational cost
1018: of this method is the number of Monte Carlo steps needed to see some
1019: change in the number of particles. We describe it by the number of
1020: Monte Carlo steps needed to annihilate the {\em last} pair of
1021: particles.
1022:
1023: To make such estimate, it is best to move to the reference frame of
1024: one of these particles. Then one particle is fixed and another one is
1025: trying to find it. The number of diffusion steps that the moving
1026: particle needs to find the one who sits still is roughly given by
1027: $M({\rm diff})\sim L^d/a$ (here and in the following it is implicitly
1028: assumed that every length variable is measured in units of lattice
1029: spacing $h$). Each diffusion step bears $M({\rm step/diff})$
1030: computational steps which gives the total number of steps to
1031: annihilate the pair of particles equal to $M({\rm tot})=M({\rm
1032: diff})M({\rm step/diff})$. The number of Monte Carlo steps per one
1033: diffusion step is roughly 1, $M({\rm step/diff})\sim 1$. However,
1034: calculation of $R_i$ requires updating the internal list which costs
1035: $M_{search}\sim a^{d-1}$ search steps whenever the particle is moved.
1036: Thus, the true number of computational steps per diffusion step is
1037: given by $M({\rm step/diff})\sim M_{search} \sim a^{d-1}$. Finally,
1038: one gets an estimate for the number of computational steps needed to
1039: annihilate the last pair of particles as $M({\rm tot})\sim L^d
1040: a^{d-2}$.
1041:
1042: The algorithm has an interesting property that for $d=1$ there is a
1043: reduction in the computational cost when comparing large and small $a$
1044: cases. For larger $a$ the algorithm works more efficiently. For $d=2$
1045: the computational cost does not depend on $a$. Simulating a large $a$
1046: situation for $d=3$ is more costly. One could avoid this growing cost
1047: problem at $d=3$ by browsing through particles instead of searching
1048: for sites when calculating $R_i$. This is clearly the preferred option
1049: when the number of particles in the system is not that large.
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053: %%%%%%%% References %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1054:
1055: \begin{thebibliography}{20}
1056:
1057: \bibitem{IntRevCyto} Luby-Phelps, K. {\em Int. Rev. Cytol.} {\bf 2000},
1058: 192, 189.
1059:
1060: \bibitem{PhysRev1} Kotomin E.; Kuzovkov, V. {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.}
1061: {\bf 1992}, 55, 2079.
1062:
1063: \bibitem{PhysRev2} Kotomin E.; Kuzovkov V. in {\em Comprehensive
1064: Chemical Kinetics}, vol. 34, ``Modern aspects of diffusion-controlled
1065: reactions'', R.G.Compton and G. Hancock Editors, (Elsevier, 1996)
1066:
1067: \bibitem{kotkuz} Kuzovkov V.N.; Kotomin, E.A. {\em Chem. Phys.} {\bf 1983},
1068: 81, 335.
1069:
1070: \bibitem{kotkuz1} Kotomin, E.; Kuzovkov, V.; Frank, W.; Seeger, A.
1071: {\em J. Phys. A} {\bf 1994}, 27, 1453.
1072:
1073: \bibitem{Chiu1} Chiu, D.T.; Wilson, C.; Rytts\'en, F.; Str\"omberg, A.;
1074: Karlsson, A.; Nordholm, S.; Hsiao, A.; Gaggar, A.; Garzia-L\'opez, R.;
1075: Moscho, A.; Orwar, O.; Zare, R.N. {\em Science} {\bf 1999}, 283, 1892.
1076:
1077: \bibitem{Chiu2} Chiu, D.T.; Wilson, C.; Karlsson, A.; Danielsson, A.;
1078: Lundqvist, A.; Str\"omberg, A.; Rytts\'en, F.; Davidson, M.; Nordholm,
1079: S.; Orwar, O.; Zare, R.N. {\em Chemical Physics} {\bf 1999}, 247, 133.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{Karl1} Karlsson, A.; Karlsson, M.; Karlsson, R.; Cans, A-S.;
1082: Str\"omberg, A.; Rytts\'en, F.; Orwar, O. {\em Nature} {\bf 2001}, 409, 150.
1083:
1084: \bibitem{Karl3} Karlsson, R.; Karlsson, A.; Karlsson, M.; Cans, A-S.;
1085: Voinova, M.; Bergenholtz, J.; Ewing, A.G.; \AA kerman, B.; Orwar, O.
1086: {\em Langmuir} {\bf 2002}, 18, 4186.
1087:
1088: \bibitem{Park1} Park, H.; Park, J.; Lim, A.K.L; Anderson, E.H.;
1089: Alivisatos, A.P.; McEuen, P.L. {\em Nature} {\bf 2000}, 407, 57.
1090:
1091: \bibitem{spinchains} Alcaraz, F.C.; Droz, M.; Henkel, M.; Rittenberg, V.
1092: {\em Annals of Physics} {\bf 1994}, 230, 250-302.
1093:
1094: \bibitem{KJ1} Konkoli, Z.; Johannesson, H.; Lee B.P. {\em Phys. Rev. E}
1095: {\bf 1999}, 59, R3787.
1096:
1097: \bibitem{KJ2} Konkoli, Z.; Johannesson, H. {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 2000},
1098: 62, 3276.
1099:
1100: \bibitem{ChemRev1} {\em Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics}, Vol. 25,
1101: ``Diffusion-limited reactions'', C.H. Bamford, C.F.H. Tipper and
1102: R.G. Compton Editors, (Elsevier, 1985).
1103:
1104: \bibitem{Khai1} Khairutdinov, R.F.; Serpone, N. {\em Prog. React. Kinetics}
1105: {\bf 1996}, 21, 1-68.
1106:
1107: \bibitem{Khai2} Khairutdinov, R.F.; Burshtein, K.Ya.;
1108: Serpone, N. {\em J. Photochemistry and Photobiology A}
1109: {\bf 1996}, 98, 1.
1110:
1111: \bibitem{Tach1} Tachiya, M. {\em Chem. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 1980},
1112: 69, 605.
1113:
1114: \bibitem{Rama} {\em Photochemistry in Organized and Constrained
1115: Media}, edited by Ramamurthy, V.; VCH Publishers (1991).
1116:
1117: \bibitem{ben1} Lee, B.P. {\em J. Phys. A} {\bf 1994}, 27, 2633.
1118:
1119: \bibitem{ben2} Lee, B.P.; Cardy, J. {\em Stat. Phys.} {\bf 1995}, 80,
1120: 971.
1121:
1122: \bibitem{fractal} Havlin, S.; Ben-Avraham, D. {\em Adv. in Physics}
1123: {\bf 1987}, 36, 695.
1124:
1125: \bibitem{burl1} Burlatskii, S.F.; Ovchinnikov, A.A.
1126: {\em Russ. J. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 1978}, 52, 1635.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{ovch} Ovchinnikov, A.A.; Zeldovich, Ya.B. {\em Chem. Phys.}
1129: {\bf 1978}, 28, 215.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{thwil} Toussaint, D.; Wilczek, F. {\em J. Chem. Phys.}
1132: {\bf 1983}, 78, 2642.
1133:
1134: \bibitem{burl2} Burlatskii, S.F.; Ovchinnikov, A.A.; Pronin, K.A.
1135: {\em JETP} {\bf 1987}, 92, 625.
1136:
1137: \bibitem{gut} Gutin, A.M.; Mikhailov, A.S.; Yashin, V.V. {\em JETP}
1138: {\bf 1987}, 92, 941.
1139:
1140: \bibitem{bram} Bramson, M.; Lebowitz, J.L. {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1141: {\bf 1988}, 61, 2397.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{oerd} Oerding, K. {\em J. Phys. A} {\bf 1996}, 29, 7051.
1144:
1145: \bibitem{mattis} Mattis, D.C.; Glasser, M.L. {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}
1146: {\bf 1998}, 70, 979.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{Kopelman} Koo, Y.E.L.; Kopelman, R. {\em J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 1991},
1149: 65, 893-918
1150:
1151: \bibitem{ChemRev2} Calef, D.F.; Deutch, M. {\em Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.}
1152: {\bf 1983}, 34, 493.
1153:
1154: \bibitem{BiolRev} Berg, H.C.; Purcell, E.M. {\em Biophys. J.}
1155: {\bf 1977}, 20, 193.
1156:
1157:
1158: \bibitem{steric} Wu, Y-Ta.; Nitsche, J.M. {\em Chemical Engineering Science}
1159: {\bf 1995}, 50, 1467-1487.
1160:
1161: \bibitem{HB} Hanusse, P.; Blanche, A. {\em J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 1981},
1162: 74, 6148.
1163:
1164: \end{thebibliography}
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168:
1169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure captions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1170:
1171: %\newpage
1172:
1173: \begin{figure}
1174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1175: \epsfxsize=8cm
1176: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig4.eps}}
1177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1178: \caption{Various situations which are simulated are shown. The three
1179: figures schematically depict various types of initial conditions from
1180: which simulation is started. (a) The upper most graph shows a
1181: situation where particles react when nearest-neighbors only. The
1182: reaction range is very short and particles come rarely in contact. (c)
1183: The lowest figure shows a situation of dense packing with a large reaction
1184: range. It corresponds to situation of high packing which occurs in a
1185: cell environment. It is unrealistic that particles can penetrate into
1186: each other but we consider this case nevertheless since it is simpler
1187: to model. (b) The middle graph is midway between two extremes.}
1188: \label{fig4}
1189: \end{figure}
1190:
1191: %\newpage
1192:
1193: \begin{figure}
1194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1195: \epsfxsize=8cm
1196: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
1197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1198: \caption{Result of Monte Carlo simulations in 1d for type (i) initial
1199: condition. A very large system is simulated on a lattice with $L=10^4$
1200: sites. Also, the initial number of particles $N_{0,A}=N_{0,B}=5000$ is
1201: very large. Simulation starts from the largest possible density
1202: $n_{tot}(0)=1$~particle/site. A and B particles have the same diffusion
1203: constant $D_A=D_B=1 s^{-1}$. Asymptotically, the number of particles
1204: approaches zero. There are three distinct regimes present; (a) of the
1205: mean field decay ($-\infty<log_{10}(t)<-2$), (b) plateau where
1206: particle concentration does not change much ($-2<log_{10}(t)<2$), (c)
1207: power law decay ($2<log_{10}(t)<5$), and (d) exponential decay at the
1208: end $5<log_{10}(t)<\infty$. The indicated ranges are given roughly
1209: just to guide the eye. They also depend on which $a$ is used in
1210: simulation.}
1211: \label{fig1}
1212: \end{figure}
1213:
1214: %\newpage
1215:
1216: \begin{figure}
1217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1218: \epsfxsize=8cm
1219: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
1220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1221: \caption{Study of the exponential regime where small number of
1222: particles is present on the lattice for type (i) initial condition
1223: with $N_{0,A}=N_{0,B}=5$. The number of lattice sites is $L=1000$. All
1224: other parameters are same as in figure 1. Each curve is obtained as
1225: average over 1000-3000 runs. Asymptotically, the number of particles
1226: approaches zero. Panel (a) shows log-n versus log-t plot to trace down
1227: power law decay (should appear as a straight line). There is no power
1228: law decay. Also, small and large $t$ region are resolved better. Panel
1229: (b) shows log-n versus t plot to indicate exponential decay
1230: (corresponds to straight lines). The particle density vanishes
1231: exponentially $n\sim{\rm exp}(-\kappa t)$ where $\kappa$ depends on $a$
1232: since the slopes for all curves are different. There is a value
1233: $a=L/2$ when $\kappa$ becomes infinite (particles can not escape each
1234: other).}
1235: \label{fig2}
1236: \end{figure}
1237:
1238: %\newpage
1239:
1240: \begin{figure}
1241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1242: \epsfxsize=8cm
1243: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
1244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1245: \caption{Simulation for type (ii) initial condition. All parameters as
1246: in the figure 2. The only difference from figure 2 is in the initial
1247: condition. $N_{0,A}$ and $N_{0,B}$ vary randomly with constraint that
1248: $N_{0,A}+N_{0,B}$ is fixed and equals $10$. Asymptotically, number of
1249: particles does not approach zero. }
1250: \label{fig3}
1251: \end{figure}
1252:
1253: %\newpage
1254:
1255: \begin{figure}
1256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1257: \epsfxsize=8cm
1258: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
1259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1260: \caption{Comparison of theory and experiment (Monte Carlo simulation)
1261: for type (i) initial condition. Simulation data are taken from figure
1262: 2. Panel (a): theory (dotted line, Eq.~\ref{nt}) predicts
1263: $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}n(t)\ne 0$ while in reality
1264: $n(t=\infty)=0$. Reasons for this discrepancy are given in the
1265: text. Panel (b): by using interpolation formula (\ref{nint}) one
1266: obtains dashed curve. Agreement with simulation gets better.}
1267: \label{fig5}
1268: \end{figure}
1269:
1270: %\newpage
1271:
1272: \begin{figure}
1273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1274: \epsfxsize=8cm
1275: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig6.eps}}
1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1277: \caption{Comparison of theory and experiment (Monte Carlo simulation)
1278: for type (ii) initial condition. Both theory and simulation give
1279: $n(\infty)\ne 0$. Theory (dotted line, calculated with Eq.~\ref{nt})
1280: predicts faster annihilation of particles.}
1281: \label{fig6}
1282: \end{figure}
1283:
1284:
1285:
1286: \end{multicols}
1287:
1288: \end{document}
1289:
1290: