1: \documentclass[pre,twocolumn,aps,floats]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[pre,aps,floats]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx,epstopdf}

4: %\input isolatin1.sty

5: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig]{revtex}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\csch}{\mbox{csch}}

8: \newcommand{\sech}{\mbox{sech}}

9: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re\,}}

10: \newcommand{\Du}{\mbox{D\hspace{-0.5pt}u}}

11: \newcommand{\del}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\nabla$}}}

12: \newcommand{\nb}{\mbox{\bf n}}

13: \newcommand{\Fb}{\mbox{\bf F}}

14: \newcommand{\Jb}{\mbox{\bf J}}

15: \newcommand{\rb}{\mbox{\bf r}}

16: \newcommand{\xb}{\mbox{\bf x}}

17: \newcommand{\ub}{\mbox{\bf u}}

18: 

19: 

20: 

21: \begin{document}

22: %\draft

23: 

24: %\title{Intermediate time scale in the relaxation of

25: %a dilute electrochemical cell}

26: 

27: \title{ Diffuse-Charge Dynamics in Electrochemical Systems }

28: 

29: \author{Martin Z. Bazant$^{1,2}$, Katsuyo

30: Thornton$^3$, and  Armand Ajdari$^2$}

31: 

32: \affiliation{

33: $^1$ Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

34: Cambridge, MA 02139 \\

35: $^2$ Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie Th{\'e}orique, UMR ESPCI-CNRS 7083,

36: 10 rue Vauquelin, F-75005 Paris, France\\

37: $^3$ Department of Materials Science and

38: Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201}

39: 

40: % first calculations: June 1999, Bordeaux.

41: % Began paper: Paris, July 2000.

42: % First draft without much numerics: Jan 2003

43: % First COMPLETE draft: Jan 2004.

44: 

45: \date{\today}

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: 

49: The response of a model micro-electrochemical system to a

50: time-dependent applied voltage is analyzed. The article begins with a

51: fresh historical review including electrochemistry, colloidal science,

52: and microfluidics. The model problem consists of a symmetric binary

53: electrolyte between parallel-plate, blocking electrodes which suddenly

54: apply a voltage.  Compact Stern layers on the electrodes are also

55: taken into account. The Nernst-Planck-Poisson equations are first

56: linearized and solved by Laplace transforms for small voltages, and

57: numerical solutions are obtained for large voltages.  The ``weakly

58: nonlinear'' limit of thin double layers is then analyzed by matched

59: asymptotic expansions in the small parameter $\epsilon = \lambda_D/L$,

60: where $\lambda_D$ is the screening length and $L$ the electrode

61: separation. At leading order, the system initially behaves like an RC

62: circuit with a response time of $\lambda_D L / D$ (not

63: $\lambda_D^2/D$), where $D$ is the ionic diffusivity, but nonlinearity

64: violates this common picture and introduce multiple time scales. The

65: charging process slows down, and neutral-salt adsorption by the

66: diffuse part of the double layer couples to bulk diffusion at the time

67: scale, $L^2/D$. In the ``strongly nonlinear'' regime (controlled by a

68: dimensionless parameter resembling the Dukhin number), this effect

69: produces bulk concentration gradients, and, at very large voltages,

70: transient space charge. The article concludes with an overview of more

71: general situations involving surface conduction, multi-component

72: electrolytes, and Faradaic processes.

73: 

74: \end{abstract}

75: 

76: 

77: \maketitle

78: 

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: \section{Introduction }

82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

83: 

84: There is rapidly growing interest in micro-electrochemical or

85: biological systems subject to time-dependent applied voltages or

86: currents. For example, AC voltages applied at microelectrodes can be

87: used to pump liquid

88: electrolytes~\cite{ramos98,ramos99,green00a,gonzalez00,green02,ajdari00,brown01,studer02,mpholo03,ramos03,nadal02b},

89: to separate or self-assemble colloidal

90: particles~\cite{yeh97,trau97,faure98,green00b,nadal02a,marquet02,ristenpart03}, and

91: to manipulate biological cells and

92: vesicles~\cite{helfrich74,mitov93,pethig96}. Conversely, oscillating

93: pressure-driven flows can be used to produce frequency-dependent

94: streaming potentials to probe the structure of porous

95: media~\cite{journiaux97,reppert01,reppert02}.

96: 

97: A common feature of these diverse phenomena is the dynamics of diffuse

98: charge in microscopic systems.  Although the macroscopic theory of

99: neutral electrolytes with quasi-equilibrium double layers is very well

100: developed in electrochemistry~\cite{bard,newman} and colloidal

101: science~\cite{hunter,russel,lyklema}, microscopic double-layer

102: charging at subdiffusive time scales is not as well

103: understood. Although much progress has been made in various disjoint

104: communities, it is not so widely appreciated, and some open questions

105: remain, especially regarding nonlinear effects. The goals of this

106: paper are, therefore, (i) to review the relevant literature and (ii)

107: to analyze a basic model problem in considerable depth, highlighting

108: some new results and directions for further research.

109: 

110: \begin{figure}

111: \includegraphics[width=3in]{cartoon.eps}

112: \caption{ Sketch of the model problem. A voltage $2V$ is suddenly

113: applied to a dilute, symmetric, binary electrolyte between

114: parallel-plate, blocking electrodes separated by

115: $2L$. \label{fig:cartoon} }

116: \end{figure}

117: 

118: To illustrate the physics of diffuse-charge dynamics, consider the simplest

119: possible case sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}: a dilute $z$:$z$ electrolyte

120: suddenly subjected to a DC voltage, $2V$, by parallel-plate blocking

121: electrodes separated by $2L$. Naively, one might assume a uniform bulk electric

122: field, $E = V/L$, but the effect of the applied voltage is not so

123: trivial. Ions migrate in the bulk field and eventually screen it completely

124: (since ``blocking electrodes'' do not support a Faradaic current).

125: 

126: What is the characteristic time scale of this response? For charge relaxation,

127: one usually quotes the time, $\tau_D = \lambda_D^2 /D$, for diffusion with a

128: diffusivity $D$ across one Debye screening length,

129: \begin{equation}

130: \lambda_D = \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon k T}{2z^2e^2C_b}} ,

131:  \label{eq:lambda}

132: \end{equation}

133: where $C_b$ is the average solute concentration, $k$ Boltzmann's

134: constant, $T$ the temperature, $e$ is the electronic charge, and $\varepsilon$ the permittivity of the

135: solvent~\cite{hunter,russel,lyklema}. The Debye time, $\tau_D$, is a material

136: property of the electrolyte, which for aqueous solutions ($\lambda_D

137: \approx 1-100$ nm, $D \approx 10^3$ $\mu$m$^2$/s) is rather small, in

138: the range of ns to $\mu$s. More generally, when Faradaic reactions occur (for

139: a non-blocking electrode), diffuse charge may also vary on the much

140: slower, geometry-dependent scale for bulk diffusion given by $\tau_L = 

141: L^2/D$, proportional to the square of the electrode separation.

142: 

143: These two relaxation times, $\tau_D$ for the charge density and

144: $\tau_L$ for the concentration, are usually presented as the only ones

145: controlling the evolution of the system, e.g.~ as in the recent

146: textbooks of Hunter~\cite{hunter} (Ch.\ 8) and Lyklema~\cite{lyklema}

147: (Chs.\ 4.6c). Dimensional analysis, however, allows for many other time

148: scales obtained by combining these two, such as the harmonic mean,

149: \begin{equation}

150: \tau_c = \sqrt{\tau_D \tau_L} = \frac{\lambda_D L}{D},  \label{eq:tmixed}

151: \end{equation}

152: proportional to the electrode separation (not squared). Below, we will

153: show that this is the primary time scale for diffuse-charge dynamics in

154: electrochemical cells, although $\tau_D$, $\tau_L$, and other time

155: scales involving surface properties also play important roles,

156: especially at large voltages (even without Faradaic processes). The

157: same applies to highly polarizable or conducting colloidal particles,

158: where $L$ is the particle size.

159: %Does a need to be introduced here? (Why not "where $L$ is given by the particle size"?) 

160: 

161: Although the basic charging time, $\tau_c$, is familiar in several scientific

162: communities~\cite{macdonald70,korn81,dukhin80,dukhin93}, it

163: is not as widely known as it should be. Recently, it

164: has been rediscovered as the (inverse) frequency of ``AC pumping'' at

165: patterned-surface micro-electrodes~\cite{ramos98,ajdari00}. As in the past, its

166: theoretical justification has sparked some controversy~\cite{scott01,ramos01}

167: related to the applicability of classical circuit

168: models~\cite{macdonald90,geddes97} in which $\tau_c$ arises as the ``RC time''

169: of a bulk resistor in series with a double-layer capacitor (see below).

170: 

171: Here, we attempt to unify and modestly extend a large body of prior

172: work on diffuse-charge dynamics in the context of our model problem,

173: paying special attention to effects which undermine the classical

174: circuit approximation. Going beyond most previous mathematical

175: studies, we allow for compact-layer capacitance, bulk concentration

176: polarization, and large voltages outside the linear regime. For the

177: nonlinear analysis, the method of matched asymptotic

178: expansions~\cite{bender,hinch,kevorkian} must be adapted for multiple time

179: scales at different orders of the expansion, so the problem also

180: presents an opportunity for mathematicians to develop time-dependent

181: boundary-layer theory.

182: 

183: We begin in section~\ref{sec:history} by reviewing some of the

184: relevant literature on electrochemical relaxation. In

185: section~\ref{sec:setup} we state the mathematical problem for a

186: suddenly applied DC voltage, and in section~\ref{sec:lin} we analyze

187: the linear response  using Laplace transforms. In

188: section~\ref{sec:nondim} we non-dimensionalize the problem and

189: describe numerical solutions, used to test our analytical

190: approximations. In section~\ref{sec:nonlin}, we derive uniformly valid

191: asymptotic expansions in the ``weakly nonlinear'' limit of thin double

192: layers and discuss the connection with circuit models. Apparently for

193: the first time (for this problem), in section~\ref{sec:higher} we 

194: analyze higher-order corrections, and in section~\ref{sec:strong} we

195: briefly discuss the ``strongly nonlinear'' regime at large voltages,

196: where the expansions are no longer valid.  In section~\ref{sec:concl},

197: we conclude by briefly discussing extensions to higher dimensions, general

198: electrolytes, and Faradaic processes and posing some open questions.

199: 

200: 

201: \section{ Historical Review }

202: \label{sec:history}

203: 

204: \subsection{ Electrical Circuit Models }

205: 

206: In electrochemistry, the most common theoretical approach is to

207: construct an equivalent electrical circuit, whose parameters are fit

208: to experimental impedance spectra or pulsed-voltage responses, as

209: recently reviewed by Macdonald~\cite{macdonald90} and

210: Geddes~\cite{geddes97}. The basic idea of an equivalent circuit is

211: apparently due to Kohlrausch~\cite{kohlrausch1873} in 1873, and the

212: first mathematical theory of Kohlrausch's ``polarization capacitance''

213: was given by Warburg at the end of the nineteenth

214: century~\cite{warburg1899,warburg1901}. Warburg argued that AC

215: electrochemical response is dominated by pure diffusion of the active

216: species and can be described a bulk resistance in series with a

217: frequency-dependent capacitance, which combine to form the ``Warburg

218: impedance''. 

219: 

220: Earlier, Helmholtz~\cite{helmholtz1853,helmholtz1879} had

221: suggested that the solid-electrolyte interface acts like a thin

222: capacitor, for which he apparently coined the term, ``double

223: layer''~\cite{bard}. In 1903 Kr\"uger~\cite{kruger1903} unified

224: Warburg's bulk impedance with Helmholtz' double-layer capacitor in the

225: first complete AC circuit model for an electrochemical cell, which

226: forms the basis for the modern ``Randles circuit''~\cite{randles47}.

227: In this context, the relaxation time for charging of the double layers

228: has been known to depend on the electrode separation, via the bulk

229: resistance, for at least a century.

230: 

231: The study of diffuse charge in the double layer was initiated in the

232: same year by Gouy~\cite{gouy1903}, who suggested that excess ionic

233: charge in solution near the electrode could be viewed as a

234: capacitance, $C_D = \varepsilon/\lambda_D$.  He was also the first to

235: derive Equation~(\ref{eq:lambda}) for $\lambda_D$ (obviously with

236: different notation) in his original theory of the diffuse double layer

237: in equilibrium~\cite{gouy1909,gouy1910}. With the availability of

238: Einstein's relation~\cite{einstein1905} for the mobility, $\mu =

239: D/kT$, at that time, the DC bulk resistance (per unit area) could have

240: been calculated as

241: \begin{equation}

242: R_b = \frac{V }{J} = \frac{L E_0}{\sigma_b E_0} = \frac{\lambda_D^2

243: L}{\varepsilon D}  \label{eq:Rb}

244: \end{equation}

245: (for a symmetric binary electrolyte of equal mobilities), where $J$ is

246: the current density and 

247: \begin{equation}

248: \sigma_b = \frac{\varepsilon D}{\lambda_D^2} = \frac{ 2(ze)^2 C_0

249:   D}{kT}  \label{eq:Kb}

250: \end{equation}

251: is the bulk conductivity. Therefore, basic time scale in

252: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tmixed}) has essentially been contained in circuit models

253: since roughly 1910 as the relaxation time,

254: \begin{equation}

255: \tau_c = R_b C_D = \frac{\lambda_D L}{D} = \frac{C_D L}{\sigma_b} =

256: \frac{\varepsilon L}{\lambda_D \sigma_b}

257: \end{equation}

258: although $\tau_c$ was not stated explicitly

259: as $\lambda_D L /D$ for perhaps another fifty years

260: ~\cite{macdonald70}.

261: 

262: Today, Gouy's screening length bears the name of Debye, who rederived

263: it in 1923 as part of his seminal work with

264: H\"uckel~\cite{debye23a,debye23b} on charge screening in bulk

265: electrolytes, using an equivalent formalism. Debye and H\"uckel solved

266: for the spherical screening cloud around an ion, and, due to the low

267: potentials involved, they linearized the transport equations, allowing

268: them to handle general electrolytes. When Gouy~\cite{gouy1910}

269: considered the identical problem of screening near a flat, blocking

270: electrode more than a decade earlier, he obtained exact solutions to

271: full nonlinear equations for the equilibrium potential profile in

272: several cases of binary electrolytes, $z_+/z_- = 1$, $2$, and

273: $\frac{1}{2}$, where $z_+$ and $z_-$ are the cation and anion charge

274: numbers, respectively. 

275: 

276: A few years later, Chapman~\cite{chapman1913} independently derived

277: Gouy's solution for a univalent electrolyte, $z_+ = z_- = 1$, the

278: special case of ``Gouy-Chapman theory'' for which they are both

279: primarily remembered today. Chapman also gave a simple form for the

280: charge-voltage relation of the diffuse-layer capacitor in this case,

281: which, upon differentiation, yields a simple formula for the nonlinear

282: differential capacitance of the diffuse layer,

283: \begin{equation}

284: C_D(\zeta) = \frac{\varepsilon}{\lambda_D} \,

285: \cosh\left(\frac{ze\zeta}{kT}\right), \label{eq:C_GC}

286: \end{equation}

287: where $\zeta$ is the voltage across the diffuse layer in thermal

288: equilibrium. (Here, we include the trivial extension to a general

289: $z$:$z$ electrolyte.)  Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Rb}) and

290: (\ref{eq:C_GC}), we also obtain the basic relaxation time, $\tau_c$,

291: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tmixed}) multiplied by a potential-dependent factor in

292: the usual case of nonzero equilibrium zeta potential (in the absence

293: of an applied voltage). This factor may be neglected in the

294: Debye-H\"uckel limit of small potentials, $\zeta \ll kT/ze$, but it

295: becomes important at large potentials and generally slows down the

296: final stages of double-layer charging.

297: 

298: More sophisticated models of the double layer were proposed by many

299: subsequent authors~\cite{delahay,bockris} and incorporated into AC

300: circuit models for electrochemical

301: cells~\cite{bard,sluyters70,parsons90}. Naturally, the original ideas of

302: Helmholtz and Gouy were eventually combined into a coherent

303: whole. In 1924, Stern~\cite{stern24} suggested   

304: decomposing the double layer into a ``compact'' (Helmholtz) part within

305: a molecular distance of the surface and a ``diffuse'' (Gouy) part

306: extending into the solution at the scale of the screening

307: length. Physically, the compact layer is intended to describe ions (at

308: the outer Helmholtz plane) whose solvation

309: molecules are in contact with the surface, although specifically

310: adsorbed ions (themselves in contact with the surface) may also be included~\cite{vorsina39}. Regardless of the precise microscopic

311: picture, however, Stern introduced the compact layer as an intrinsic surface

312: capacitance, which cuts off the divergent capacitance of

313: the diffuse layer, Eq.(\ref{eq:C_GC}), at large zeta potentials.

314: 

315: Using this model of two capacitors in series and neglecting

316: specific adsorption, Grahame~\cite{grahame47} applied Gouy-Chapman

317: theory for the diffuse part and inferred the nonlinear differential

318: capacitance of the compact part from his famous experiments on

319: electrified liquid-mercury drops. Macdonald~\cite{macdonald54} then

320: developed a mathematical model for double layers at metal electrodes

321: by viewing the compact layer as a parallel-plate capacitor, as we do

322: below, although he also allowed its thickness and capacitance to vary

323: due to electrostriction and dielectric saturation~\cite{grahame50}. 

324: The reader is referred to

325: various recent reviews~\cite{macdonald90,geddes97,parsons90}

326: to

327: learn how other effects neglected below, such as specific adsorption

328: and Faradaic processes for non-blocking electrodes, have been included

329: empirically in modern circuit models.

330: 

331: In spite of a century of research, open questions remain about the

332: applicability of circuit models~\cite{geddes97}, and even the most

333: sophisticated fits to experimental data still suffer from

334: ambiguities~\cite{macdonald90}.  One problem is the somewhat arbitrary

335: distinction between the diffuse layers and the bulk electrolyte, which

336: in fact comprise a single, continuous region. Even accepting this

337: partition, it is clear that the non-uniform evolution of ionic

338: concentrations in both regions cannot be fully captured by homogeneous

339: circuit elements~\cite{hollings03}. Another problem is the further

340: partitioning of the double layer into two (or more) poorly defined

341: regions at atomic lengths scales, where macroscopic continuum theories

342: (e.g. for dielectric response) are of questionable

343: validity~\cite{cooper78}.

344: 

345: \subsection{ Microscopic Transport Models }

346: \label{sec:hist2}

347: 

348: An alternative theoretical approach, pursued below, is to solve the

349: time-dependent Nernst-Planck

350: equations~\cite{nernst1888,nernst1889,planck1890} for ionic transport

351: across the entire cell (outside any molecular-scale compact layers)

352: without distinguishing between the diffuse-charge layers and the

353: quasi-neutral bulk.  Because this ``phenomenological''~\cite{korn81}

354: approach requires solving Poisson's equation for the mean-field

355: electrostatic potential (self-consistently generated by the continuum

356: charge density) down to microscopic (and sometimes atomic) length

357: scales, it lacks the thermodynamic justification of traditional

358: macroscopic theories based on bulk electroneutrality and

359: electrochemical potentials~\cite{newman}. Nevertheless, it addresses

360: time-dependent charge-relaxation phenomena, which do occur in real

361: systems, with fewer {\it ad hoc} assumptions than circuit models and

362: thus may be considered closer to first principles. The use of the

363: Nernst-Planck equations at scales smaller than the screening length

364: (but still larger than atomic dimensions) is also supported by the

365: success of Gouy-Chapman theory in predicting the diffuse-layer

366: capacitance in a number of experimental systems

367: (e.g. Refs.~\cite{grahame47,macdonald54}), because the theory is based

368: on the steady-state Nernst-Planck equations for thermal equilibrium.

369: The main difficulty in working with the Nernst-Planck equations, aside

370: from mathematical complexity, is perhaps in formulating appropriate

371: boundary conditions at the electrode surface, just outside any compact

372: layers.

373: 

374: Although the response to a suddenly applied DC voltage has been

375: considered by a few authors in the

376: linear~\cite{lemay53,buck69,korn77b} and

377: nonlinear~\cite{korn81,korn78} regimes, as we also do below, much more

378: analysis has been reported for the case of weak AC forcing, where the

379: equations are linearized and the time dependence is assumed to be

380: sinusoidal. These simplifications are made mainly for analytical

381: convenience, although they have direct relevance for the

382: interpretation of impedance spectra. An early analysis of this type

383: was due to Ferry~\cite{ferry48}, who considered the response of a

384: semi-infinite electrolyte to an oscillating charge density applied at a

385: electrode surface. Ferry's treatment is formally equivalent to the

386: classical theory of dielectric dispersion in bulk

387: electrolytes~\cite{debye28,falkenhagen34}.  Naturally, in both cases

388: the same time scale, $\tau_D = \lambda_D^2/D$, arises, and the

389: relaxation of the double layer has no dependence on the macroscopic

390: geometry.

391: 

392: Ferry's analysis of a single electrode is consistent with the common

393: intuition that double-layer charging should be a purely microscopic

394: process, but one might wonder how the electrode could draw charge

395: ``from infinity'' when an infinite electrolyte has infinite

396: resistance. Indeed, as emphasized by Buck~\cite{buck69} and

397: Macdonald~\cite{macdonald70} and confirmed by detailed comparisons

398: with experimental impedance spectra, Ferry's analysis is fundamentally

399: flawed, starting from the boundary conditions: It is not possible to

400: control the microscopic charge density at an electrode surface and

401: neglect its coupling to bulk transport processes; instead, one imposes

402: a voltage relative to another electrode and observes the resulting

403: current (or vice versa), while the surface charge density evolves

404: self-consistently.  

405: 

406: Buck~\cite{buck69} eventually corrected Ferry's analysis to account

407: for the missing ``IR drop'' across two electrodes which imposes the

408: initial surface charge density (or, alternatively, voltage). Nevertheless, the

409: physical picture of a double-layer responding locally to ``charge

410: injection'', independent of bulk transport processes, persists to the

411: present day.  For example, recent textbooks on colloidal science

412: (Hunter~\cite{hunter}, p.\ 408; Lyklema~\cite{lyklema}, p.\ 4.78)

413: present a slightly different version of Ferry's analysis (attributed

414: to O'Brien) as the canonical problem of ``double-layer relaxation'':

415: the response of a semi-infinite electrolyte to a suddenly imposed,

416: constant surface charge density. This gives some insight into high

417: frequency dielectric dispersion of non-polarizable colloids (the usual

418: case), but it is not relevant for polarizable particles and

419: electrodes. Three decades after Buck and Macdonald, it is worth

420: re-emphasizing the fundamental coupling of double-layer charging of

421: bulk transport in finite, polarizable systems.

422: 

423: The mathematical theory of AC response for a finite, two-electrode

424: system began with Jaff\'e's analysis for

425: semiconductors~\cite{jaffe33,jaffe52} and was extended to liquid

426: electrolytes by Chang and Jaff\'e~\cite{chang52}. A number of

427: restrictive assumptions in these studies, such as a uniform electric

428: field, were relaxed by Macdonald~\cite{macdonald53} for semiconductors

429: and electrolytes and independently by Friauf~\cite{friauf54} for ionic

430: crystals. These authors, who gave perhaps the first complete

431: mathematical solutions, also allowed for bulk generation/recombination

432: reactions, which are crucial for electrons and holes in

433: semiconductors. Subsequent authors mostly neglected bulk reactions in

434: studies of

435: liquid~\cite{macdonald70,buck69,baker68,macdonald74a,macdonald74b} and

436: solid~\cite{beaumont67,korn77b} electrolytes, while focusing on other

437: effects, such as arbitrary ionic valences and the compact layer.

438: 

439: Although it is implicit in earlier work, Macdonald~\cite{macdonald70}

440: first clearly identified the geometry-dependent time scale, $\tau_c =

441: \lambda_D L/D$, (in this form) as governing the relaxation of an

442: electrochemical cell. It was also derived independently by Kornyshev

443: and Vorontyntsev~\cite{korn77b,korn78} in the Russian literature on

444: solid electrolytes with one mobile ionic species~\cite{korn81}. With

445: Itskovich~\cite{korn77a}, these authors also modeled the compact-layer

446: capacitance via a mixed Dirichlet-Neumann condition on the

447: Nernst-Planck equations. This classical boundary

448: condition~\cite{bard}, also used below, introduces another length

449: scale, $\lambda_S$, the effective width of the Stern layer, which also

450: affects the time scales for electrochemical relaxation.

451: 

452: Other important surface properties have also been included in

453: mathematical analyses of AC response. For example, several recent

454: studies of blocking electrodes have included the effect of a nonzero

455: equilibrium zeta potential (away from the point of zero

456: charge)~\cite{hollings03,gunning95,scott00a,scott00b}, building on the

457: work of Delacey and White~\cite{delacey82}. A greater complication is

458: to include Faradaic processes at non-blocking electrodes through

459: boundary conditions of the Butler-Volmer

460: type~\cite{newman,delahay,bockris}, as suggested by

461: Levich~\cite{levich49} and Frumkin~\cite{frumkin55}. This approach has

462: been followed in various analyses of AC response around base states of

463: zero~\cite{korn81,korn77a,korn78,macdonald76a,macdonald76b,macdonald77}

464: and nonzero~\cite{bonnefont01,bonnefont_thesis} steady Faradaic

465: current. Numerical solutions of the time-dependent Nernst-Planck

466: equations have also been developed for AC response and more general

467: situations~\cite{delacey82,brumleve78,murphy92}, following the

468: original work of Cohen and Cooley~\cite{cohen65}.

469: % The effect of surface

470: % roughness has also been studied recently~\cite{pajkossy94}, although still

471: % relatively little mathematical analysis of electrochemical relaxation in two or

472: % three dimensions has been done.

473: 

474: 

475: \subsection{ Colloids and Microfluidic Systems }

476: \label{sec:colloids}

477: 

478: Diffuse-charge dynamics occurs not only near electrodes, but also

479: around colloidal particles and in microfluidic systems, where the

480: coupling with fluid flow results in time-dependent, nonlinear

481: electrokinetic phenomena. This review may be the first to unify some

482: of the fairly disjoint literatures on diffuse-charge dynamics in these

483: areas with the older literature in electrochemistry discussed

484: above. Compared to the latter, more sophisticated mathematical

485: analyses are often done in colloidal science and

486: electro-microfluidics, starting from the Nernst-Planck equations for

487: ion transport and the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid mechanics in

488: two or three dimensions. On the other hand, with the notable exception

489: of the Ukrainian school~\cite{dukhin93,lyklema,dukhin02,murtsovkin96}, less

490: attention is paid to surface properties, and simple boundary

491: conditions are usually assumed (constant zeta potential and complete

492: blocking of ions) which exclude diffuse-charge dynamics.

493: 

494: This might explain why the material time scale, $\tau_D$, is

495: emphasized as the primary one for double-layer relaxation around

496: colloidal particles~\cite{hunter,russel,lyklema}, although the mixed

497: time scale, $\tau_c = (L/\lambda_D)\tau_D$, has come to be recognized

498: as controlling bulk-field screening by

499: electrodes~\cite{hollings03,gunning95,scott00a,scott00b}. This

500: thinking can be traced back to the seminal work of Debye and

501: Falkenhagen~\cite{debye28,falkenhagen34} on dielectric dispersion in

502: bulk electrolytes, mentioned above. In that context, when a background

503: field $E_b$ is applied to an electrolyte, the relevant geometrical

504: length is the size of the screening cloud around an ion, $L =

505: \lambda_D$, over which a voltage, $E_b \lambda_D$, is effectively

506: applied. The relevant RC time for the polarization of the

507: screening cloud is then, $\tau_c = \lambda_D \lambda_D/D =

508: \tau_D$. The possible role of geometry is masked by the presence of

509: only one relevant length scale, $\lambda_D$.

510: 

511: For colloidal particles, which are usually much larger than the

512: double-layer thickness, the second time scale, $\tau_a = a^2/D$, for

513: bulk diffusion around a particle of radius, $a$, becomes important,

514: especially in strong fields. If there is significant surface conduction

515: or the particle is conducting, the ``RC'' time scale, $\tau_c =

516: \lambda_D a/D$, can also become important. In general, double-layer

517: relaxation is thus sensitive to the size and shape of the

518: particle. Although it is largely unknown (and rarely cited) in the

519: West, many effects involving non-uniform double-layer polarization

520: around colloidal particles have been studied 

521: under the name, ``non-equilibrium electric surface

522: phenomena''~\cite{dukhin80}, as recently reviewed by S.\ S.\

523: Dukhin~\cite{dukhin93,dukhin02}.

524: 

525: The colloidal analog of our model problem involving a blocking

526: electrochemical cell is that of an ideally polarizable, metal particle

527: in a suddenly applied background electric field. This situation has

528: received much less attention than the usual case of non-conducting

529: particles of fixed surface charge density, but it has an interesting

530: history.  The non-uniform polarization of the double layer for a metal

531: particle was perhaps first described by Levich~\cite{levich}, using

532: Helmholtz' capacitor model.  Simonov and

533: Shilov~\cite{simonov73a,simonov77} later considered diffuse charge and

534: showed that the metal particle acquires an induced dipole moment

535: opposite to the field over the time scale, $\tau_c = \lambda_D a /D$,

536: as bulk conduction transfers charge from the part of the double-layer

537: facing away from the field to the part facing toward the field. The

538: two hemispheres may be viewed as capacitors coupled through a

539: continuous bulk resistor~\cite{simonov77}, as in the RC circuit model

540: of DC electrochemical cells described above. The charging process

541: continues until the redistribution of diffuse-charge completely

542: eliminates the normal component of the electric field, responsible for

543: charging the double layer.

544: 

545: Diffuse-charge dynamics is important in the context of colloids

546: because it affects electrokinetic phenomena. In the metal-sphere

547: example, the remaining tangential component of the field interacts

548: with the non-uniform induced diffuse charge (and zeta potential) to

549: cause nonlinear electro-osmotic flows~\cite{murtsovkin96,gamayunov86},

550: which causes hydrodynamic interactions between colloidal

551: particles. Although these flows have little effect on the

552: electrophoresis of charged polarizable particles in uniform DC

553: fields~\cite{simonov73b,simonova76b}, they significantly affect

554: dielectrophoresis in nonuniform AC fields~\cite{shilov81,simonova01},

555: where the time-dependence of double-layer relaxation also plays an

556: important role. 

557: 

558: These developments followed from pioneering studies of S.\ S.\ Dukhin, B.\ V.\ Deryagin, and collaborators~\cite{dukhin80,dukhin93,deryagin80,dukhin74} 

559: on the effects of surface conduction and concentration

560: gradients on electrical polarization and electro-osmotic flows around

561: highly charged non-conducting particles, which was also extended to

562: polarizable particles~\cite{murtsovkin96}. (Similar ideas were also

563: pursued later in the Western literature, with some new

564: results~\cite{hunter,obrien83,hinch84,prieve84,anderson89}.)  Earlier still,

565: Bikerman~\cite{bikerman33,bikerman35,bikerman40} presented the

566: original theory of surface conduction in the double layer, and

567: Overbeek~\cite{overbeek43} first calculated in detail the effect

568: of non-equilibrium double-layer polarization on electrophoresis.

569: %  Some

570: % of these exotic NESP involving diffuse-charge dynamics may have

571: % relevance for recent experiments on colloidal self-assembly near

572: % electrodes in AC fields~\cite{yeh97,trau97}.

573: 

574: Diffuse-charge dynamics has begun to be exploited in microfluidic

575: devices, albeit without the benefit of the prior literature in

576: electrochemistry and colloidal science discussed above. In a series of

577: recent papers, Ramos and collaborators have predicted and observed

578: ``AC electro-osmosis'' at a pair of blocking

579: micro-electrodes~\cite{ramos98,ramos99,green00a,gonzalez00,green02}. Their

580: simple explanation of double-layer dynamics~\cite{ramos98,ramos99},

581: supported by a mathematical analysis of AC response in two

582: dimensions~\cite{gonzalez00}, is similar to that of Simonov and Shilov

583: for a metal particle in an AC field~\cite{simonov77}, and the

584: resulting electro-osmotic flow is of the type described by Gamanov et

585: al.\ for metal particles~\cite{gamayunov86}. An important difference,

586: however, is that AC electro-osmosis occurs at fixed micro-electrodes,

587: whose potentials are controlled externally, as opposed to free

588: colloidal particles.  Ajdari~\cite{ajdari00} has proposed a similar

589: means of pumping liquids using AC voltages applied at an array of

590: micro-electrodes, where broken symmetries in surface geometry or

591: chemistry generally lead to net pumping past the array, as observed in

592: subsequent experiments~\cite{brown01,studer02,mpholo03,ramos03}. These

593: are all examples of the general principle of ``induced-charge

594: electro-osmosis''~\cite{bazant03,squires03}, where diffuse-charge

595: dynamics at polarizable surfaces (not necessarily electrodes) is used

596: to drive micro-flows with AC or DC forcing. Clearly, the full range of

597: possible microfluidic applications of time-dependent nonlinear

598: electrokinetics has yet to be explored.

599: 

600: 

601: \subsection{ The Limit of Thin Double Layers}

602: 

603: All of the analytical studies cited above that go beyond linear

604: response (and most that do not) are based on the thin-double-layer

605: approximation, $\lambda_D \ll L$. In this limit, the bulk electrolyte

606: remains quasi-neutral, and the double layer remains in thermal

607: quasi-equilibrium, even with time dependent forcing (slower than

608: $\tau_D$)~\cite{newman,lyklema,hunter,russel,dukhin93}. The same limit

609: also justifies the general notion of circuit models for the diffuse

610: part of the double layer and, in the absence of concentration

611: gradients, the neutral bulk region.

612: 

613: As first shown by Grafov and Chernenko~\cite{grafov62,chernenko63} in

614: the Soviet Union and by Newman~\cite{newman66} and

615: Macgillivray~\cite{macgillivray68} in the United States, the thin

616: double-layer approximation for electrochemical cells can be given

617: ``firm'' (but not necessarily ``rigorous'') mathematical justification

618: by the method of matched asymptotic

619: expansions~\cite{bender,hinch,kevorkian} in the small parameter,

620: $\epsilon = \lambda_D/L$. For steady Faradaic conduction, the usual

621: leading-order approximation involves a neutral bulk with charged

622: boundary layers of $O(\epsilon)$ dimensionless width, which has since

623: been established rigorously in a number of studies by

624: mathematicians~\cite{rubinstein90,henry89,louro91,henry95,park97,barcilon97}.  The

625: standard asymptotic approximation breaks down, however, near Nernst's

626: diffusion-limited current, where the concentration at the cathode

627: vanishes. At the limiting current~\cite{smyrl67}, the boundary layer

628: expands to $O(\epsilon^{2/3})$ width, while at still larger

629: currents~\cite{rubinstein79}, a layer of ``space charge'' extends out

630: to $O(1)$ distances into the bulk region, although the effect of realistic

631: boundary conditions (Faradaic processes, compact layer, etc.) remains

632: to be studied in these exotic regimes. Matched asymptotic expansions

633: are also beginning to be used for time-dependent electrochemical

634: problems with Faradaic processes~\cite{bonnefont01,bonnefont_thesis}

635: below the limiting current.

636: 

637: Perhaps because it originated in fluid mechanics~\cite{kevorkian}, the

638: method of matched asymptotic expansions has been used extensively

639: in colloidal science and microfluidics

640: ~\cite{gonzalez00,dukhin93,dukhin74,obrien83,hinch84,prieve84,anderson89,dukhin69,dukhin70},

641: albeit with varying degrees of mathematical rigor. In any case, the

642: advantages of the technique are (i) to justify the assumption 

643: of equilibrium

644: structure for the double layers (at leading order), regardless of

645: transport processes in the neutral bulk, and (ii) to view the double

646: layers as infinitely thin at the bulk length scale, which is

647: particularly useful in multidimensional problems. For statics or

648: dynamics at the bulk diffusion time, it is usually possible to

649: construct uniformly valid approximations by adding the inner and

650: outer solutions and subtracting the overlap.

651: 

652: The thin double layer approximation is ``asymptotic'' as $\epsilon

653: \rightarrow 0$, which means that the ratio of the approximation to the

654: exact solution approaches unity for sufficiently small $\epsilon$,

655: with all other parameters held fixed. For any fixed $\epsilon > 0$ (no

656: matter how small), however, the approximation breaks down at

657: sufficiently large voltages. The general

658: criterion

659: \begin{equation}

660: \frac{\lambda_D}{a} \, \cosh\left(\frac{ze\zeta}{2kT}\right)\ll 1

661: \label{eq:valid}

662: \end{equation}

663: is often quoted for the validity of Smoluchowski's formula for the

664: electrophoretic mobility of a thin-double-layer

665: particle~\cite{hunter}, as justified by numerical

666: calculations~\cite{obrien78}. This is related to S. S. Duhkin's

667: seminal work on double-layer distortion around a spherical

668: particle~\cite{dukhin93,dukhin74,dukhin70}: In the case of highly charged

669: particles, $\zeta \gg kT/ze$, the ``Dukhin

670: number'' $\Du$ (which he called ``$Rel$'') controls corrections to

671: the thin-double-layer limit, $\Du=0$.

672: 

673: The Dukhin number is defined as the ratio of the double-layer surface

674: conductivity, $\sigma_s$, to the bulk conductivity, $\sigma_b$, in

675: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Kb}) per geometrical length, $a$: $\Du =

676: \sigma_s/\sigma_b a$.  Although its effect on electrophoresis was

677: first explored in detail by Dukhin, the same dimensionless group was

678: defined a few decades earlier by Bikerman~\cite{bikerman40}, who also

679: realized that it would play a fundamental role in electrokinetic

680: phenomena.  In a symmetric binary electrolyte with equal

681: diffusivities, the Dukhin number can be put in the simple

682: form,

683: \begin{eqnarray}

684: \Du &=& \frac{2\lambda_D(1+m)}{a} \left[ \cosh\left(

685: \frac{ze\zeta}{2kT}\right) - 1 \right] \nonumber \\

686: &  =&  \frac{4\lambda_D(1+m)}{a} \sinh^2\left(

687: \frac{ze\zeta}{4kT}\right).   \label{eq:Du}

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: where 

690: \begin{equation}

691: m = \left(\frac{kT}{ze}\right)^2 \frac{2\varepsilon}{\eta D} 

692: \end{equation}

693: is a dimensionless number giving the relative importance of

694: electro-osmosis compared with electro-migration and diffusion in surface

695: conduction, and $\eta$ is the viscosity. This form is due to Deryagin

696: and Dukhin~\cite{deryagin69}, who generalized Bikerman's original

697: results~\cite{bikerman33,bikerman35} to account for electro-osmotic

698: surface conductance ($m>0$). For $\Du \ll 1$ the

699: double-layer remains in its equilibrium state at constant zeta

700: potential, but for $\Du \gg 1$ it becomes distorted as surface

701: conduction draws current lines into the double layer.  For a detailed   

702: pedagogical discussion, we refer to Lyklema~\cite{lyklema}.

703: 

704: It is interesting to note that (at least at large zeta potentials) the

705: Dukhin number is similar to the ratio of the effective RC

706: time, $\tau_c(\zeta)$, away from the point of zero charge ($\zeta \neq

707: 0$) to the bulk diffusion time, $\tau_a$:

708: \begin{equation}

709: \frac{\tau_c(\zeta)}{\tau_a} = \frac{\lambda_D}{a} \,

710: \cosh\left(\frac{ze \zeta}{kT}\right)

711: \end{equation}

712: where we have used Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Rb})--(\ref{eq:C_GC}).  Moreover, the

713: usual condition (\ref{eq:valid}) for the validity of the thin

714: double-layer approximation in quasi-steady electrokinetic problems is

715: also a statement about time scales: $\tau_c(\zeta) \ll \tau_L$. When

716: this condition is violated, the usual RC charging dynamics is

717: slowed down so much by nonlinearity that bulk diffusion may complicate

718: the picture. Whether this does in fact occur depends on if the

719: nonlinearity is strong enough to cause significant concentration

720: depletion in the bulk for a given geometry and forcing. Understanding

721: this issue requires going beyond leading order in asymptotic analysis,

722: which is not trivial.

723: 

724: In spite of extensive work on the asymptotic theory of diffuse-charge

725: dynamics, difficult open questions remain.  The leading-order

726: thin-double-layer approximation is well understood in many cases, but

727: higher-order corrections have been calculated in only a few heroic

728: instances, such as the asymptotic analysis of diffusiophoresis by

729: Prieve et al.~\cite{prieve84}. Moreover, such detailed analysis has

730: mostly (if not exclusively) been done for quasi-steady problems. For

731: time-dependent problems of double-layer charging, it seems that

732: higher-order terms in uniformly-valid matched asymptotic expansions

733: have never been calculated.  

734: 

735: Even the leading-order behavior is poorly understood when the {\it

736: induced} zeta potential is large enough to violate the condition

737: (\ref{eq:valid}). In that case, the effective Dukhin number varies

738: with time, as the total zeta potential evolves in time and space. On

739: the other hand, the Russian literature on non-equilibrium

740: electro-surface phenomena at large $\Du$ mostly pertains to highly

741: charged particles in weak fields, where the constant {\it equilibrium}

742: zeta potential is large, but the time-dependent induced zeta potential

743: is small.

744: 

745: Below, we begin to explore these issues in the much simpler context of

746: a one-dimensional problem involving parallel-plate electrodes, which

747: excludes surface conduction and electro-osmotic flow.  We shall see

748: that this requires extending standard boundary-layer theory, which

749: deals with multiple length scales, to account for simultaneous

750: multiple time scales.  Before examining the nonlinear theory,

751: however, we state the mathematical model and study its exact solution

752: in the linear limit of small potentials.

753: 

754: 

755: 

756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

757: \section{ The Basic Mathematical Problem }

758: 

759: \label{sec:setup}

760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

761: 

762: 

763: As the simplest problem retaining the essential features of

764: diffuse-charge dynamics, we consider a dilute, completely dissociated

765: $z\!:\!z$ electrolyte, limited by two parallel, planar, blocking

766: electrodes at $X=\pm L$. We describe the concentrations of the charged

767: ions by continuum fields, $C_{\pm}(X,\tau)$, which satisfy the

768: Nernst-Planck equations,

769: \begin{equation}

770: \frac{\partial C_\pm}{\partial \tau} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial X} \left[

771: -D \frac{\partial C_\pm}{\partial X} \mp \mu ze C_\pm \frac{\partial

772:   \Phi}{\partial X}

773: \right]   \label{eq:eqdim}

774: \end{equation}

775: (without generation/recombination reactions), where $\Phi$ is the

776: electrostatic potential, which describes the Coulomb interaction in a

777: mean-field approximation.  For simplicity we assume that the diffusion

778: coefficients of the two ionic species are equal to the same constant,

779: $D$, and obtain the mobility, $\mu$, from the Einstein relation, $\mu

780: = D/k T$. The total ionic charge density, $\rho_e$, controls the

781: spatial variation of the potential, $\Phi$, through Poisson's 

782: equation,

783: \begin{equation}

784: - \varepsilon \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial X^2} = \rho_e =  ze (C_+ - C_-)

785: \label{Poi}

786: \end{equation}

787: where $\varepsilon$ is the dielectric permittivity of the solvent,

788: assumed to be a constant.

789: 

790: As described above, we focus on ``ideally polarizable'' or ``completely

791: blocking'' electrodes without Faradaic processes, so the ionic fluxes have to

792: vanish there:

793: \begin{equation}

794: F_{\pm} = -D \frac{\partial C_{\pm}}{\partial X} \mp \frac{ze D}{k_BT} C_{\pm}

795: \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial X}

796:  =0, \ \ \mbox{for } X=\pm L.

797: \end{equation}

798: The Faradaic current density, $J = ze(F_+ - F_-)$, also vanishes at

799: the electrodes, although it can be nonzero elsewhere as diffuse charge

800: moves around inside the cell. We also take into account the intrinsic

801: capacitance of the electrode surface through a mixed boundary

802: condition for the potential~\cite{bard,korn77a,bonnefont01}. The surface

803: capacitance may represent a Stern layer of polarized solvent molecules~\cite{stern24}

804: and/or a dielectric coating on the electrode~\cite{macdonald54}. If $V_{\pm}(t)$ is the external

805: potential imposed by the external circuit on the electrode at $X=\pm

806: L$, then we assume

807: \begin{equation}

808: \Phi = V_{\pm} \mp \lambda_S \frac{\partial

809: \Phi}{\partial X} , \ \ \mbox{ at } X = \pm L,

810: \label{BCpot}

811: \end{equation}

812: where $\lambda_S$ is an effective thickness for the compact part of

813: the double layer. For a simple dielectric layer, this is equal to its

814: actual thickness times the ratio, $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_S$, of dielectric

815: constants of the solvent and the Stern layer, $\varepsilon_S$.

816: 

817: In order to study nonlinear effects and avoid imposing a time

818: scale, we consider the response to a step in voltage (a suddenly applied DC voltage),

819: rather than the usual case of weak AC forcing. For times $\tau <0$, no

820: voltage is applied, and we assume no spontaneous charge accumulation at the

821: electrodes.  The initial ionic

822: concentrations are uniform, $C_{\pm}(X,\tau <0)=C_0$. For $\tau> 0$, a

823: voltage difference $2V$ is applied between the two electrodes,

824: $V_{\pm}(\tau >0)=\pm V$, and we solve for the evolution of the

825: concentrations and the potential. As $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, the bulk

826: electric field at the center, $|E(0,\tau)| = \partial \Phi /

827: \partial X$, decays from its initial value, $V/L$, to zero, due to screening by

828: diffuse charge which is transferred from the right side of the cell

829: ($0 < X < 1$) to the left ($-1 < X < 0$). The relaxation is complete

830: when the Faradaic current decays to zero in steady state, from its

831: initial uniform value, $J(X,0) = J_0 = - \sigma_b V/L= -2 (ze)^2 C_0 D V/ kT L$.

832: 

833: 

834: 

835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

836: \section{ Linear Dynamics }

837: \label{sec:lin}

838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

839: 

840: \subsection{ Transform Solution for Arbitrary $\lambda_D$, $\lambda_S$,

841: $L$ }

842: 

843: For applied potentials much smaller than the thermal voltage, $V \ll

844: k_BT/ze$, the equations can be linearized, $C_{\pm}= C_0 +\delta

845: C_{\pm}$, so that the ionic charge density,

846: $\rho_e=ze(C_+-C_-)=ze(\delta C_+ -\delta C_-)$, obeys the

847: Debye-Falkenhagen equation~\cite{debye28},

848: \begin{equation}

849: \frac{1}{D} \frac{ \partial \rho_e}{\partial \tau}

850:  \approx \frac{\partial^2 \rho_e}{\partial X^2} - \kappa^2 \rho_e

851: \label{Deb}

852: \end{equation}

853: where $\kappa=\lambda_D^{-1}$ is the inverse screening length.

854: This equation can also be written as a conservation law,

855: \begin{equation}

856: \frac{\partial \rho_e}{\partial \tau} = - \frac{\partial J_e}{\partial X}

857: \end{equation}

858: in terms of the linearized total ionic electrical current,

859: \begin{equation}

860: J_e \approx - D\frac{\partial \rho_e}{\partial X} - D \kappa^2\varepsilon

861: \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial X}

862: \end{equation}

863: which vanishes at the blocking electrodes, $X=\pm L$.

864: 

865: To solve the model problem, which involves a step-potential in time, it is

866: convenient to use Laplace transforms, defined by

867: \begin{equation}

868: {\hat f}(S) = \int_0^\infty d\tau\,\, e^{-S\tau} f(\tau).

869: \end{equation}

870: As $\rho_e(X)=0$ for $\tau<0$, the Laplace transforms of Eqs.~(\ref{Poi}) and

871: (\ref{Deb}) are

872: \begin{eqnarray}

873:  \frac{\partial^2 \hat \rho_e}{\partial X^2} &=&  k^2 {\hat \rho_e}

874: \label{hDeb} \\

875: -\varepsilon \frac{\partial^2 \hat\Phi}{\partial X^2} & = & {\hat \rho_e}

876: \label{hPoi}

877: \end{eqnarray}

878: where 

879: \begin{equation}

880: k(S)^2= \frac{S}{D} + \kappa^2.

881: \end{equation}

882: The general antisymmetric solution to Eq.~(\ref{hDeb}) is,

883: \begin{equation}

884: \hat{\rho}_e(X,S)= A \sinh(k X)

885: \end{equation}

886: for some constant $A(S)$, which, substituting into Eq.~(\ref{hPoi})

887: and integrating, yields,

888: \begin{equation}

889: - \epsilon_w \frac{\partial \hat{\Phi}}{\partial X}(X,S) =

890: \frac{A}{k}  \cosh(k X) + B,  \label{ES}

891: \end{equation}

892: where the constant $B(S)$, determined by $\hat{J_e}(\pm L,S) = 0$, is given by

893: \begin{equation}

894: B = A k \cosh(\kappa_S L) (\kappa^{-2} - k^{-2}) .

895: \end{equation}

896: Integrating Eq.~(\ref{ES}) again and enforcing antisymmetry yields the

897: Laplace transform of the potential,

898: \begin{equation}

899: {\hat \Phi}(X,S) = - A \frac{\cosh(k L)}{\varepsilon k^2}

900: \left( \frac{\sinh(k X)}{\cosh(k L)} + \frac{k S X}{\kappa^2 D} .

901: \right)

902: \end{equation}

903: The remaining constant,

904: \begin{equation}

905: A= \frac{-k^2 \varepsilon V S^{-1} \sech(k L) } {

906: \tanh(kL)+\lambda_S k +\frac{kSL}{\kappa^2 D}

907: \left(1+\frac{\lambda_S}{L}\right) }

908: %\right)^{-1}

909: \end{equation}

910: is determined by the Stern-layer boundary condition,

911: Eq.~(\ref{BCpot}).

912: 

913: \subsection{ Long-time Exponential Relaxation }

914: 

915: There is a great deal of information about transients in the Laplace

916: transform of exact solution to the linear problem. For times much

917: smaller than the Debye time, $\tau \ll \tau_D = \lambda_D^2/D$ (or $S

918: \gg \kappa^2 D$), there is no significant response, so we are mainly

919: interested in the response at longer times, $\tau \gg \tau_D$ (or $S

920: \ll \kappa^2 D$). There are many ways to see that this is generally an

921: exponential relaxation dominated by the mixed time scale discussed

922: above, $\tau_c = \lambda_D L/D$, although several other time scales

923: allowed by dimensional analysis also play a role.

924: 

925: \subsubsection{ Diffuse Charge Density at a Surface }

926: 

927: Let us focus on one quantity, for example, the Laplace transform of

928: the charge density at the anode, ${\hat \rho_e}(X=L,S)$.  The exact

929: formula is

930: \begin{equation}

931: {\hat \rho_e}(L,S) = A \sinh(k L) ,

932: %= \frac{-k^2 \epsilon_w V S^{-1} \tanh(k L) }

933: %{ \tanh(kL)+\lambda_S k +\frac{kSL}{\kappa^2 D} \left(1+\frac{\lambda_S}{L}\right)

934: %}.

935: \end{equation}

936: which is difficult to invert analytically. (Keep in mind that $k$

937: depends on $S$.) For times much longer than the Debye time, we

938: consider the limit, $S \ll \kappa^2 D$, in which the Laplace transform

939: takes the much simpler asymptotic form,

940: \begin{equation}

941: {\hat \rho_e}(L,S) \sim \frac{K_{\rho}\, S^{-1}}{1 + \tau_{\rho} S}

942: \end{equation}

943: where

944: \begin{equation}

945: K_{\rho} = -\frac{\varepsilon V \kappa^2}{1 + \kappa \lambda_S \coth(\kappa L) }

946: \end{equation}

947: and

948: \begin{equation}

949: \tau_{\rho} = \frac{L}{\kappa D} \, \left[ \frac{\coth(\kappa L)\left(1 +

950: \frac{3\lambda_S}{2L}\right) - \frac{1}{2} \kappa \lambda_S \csch^2(\kappa L)

951: - \frac{1}{\kappa L}}{1 + \kappa \lambda_S \coth(\kappa L) } \right]

952: \label{eq:taucrho}

953: \end{equation}

954: Since the Laplace transform of $1-\exp(-\tau/\tau_o)$ is

955: $S^{-1}/(1+S\tau_o)$, this result clearly shows that the buildup of

956: the charged screening layer occurs exponentially over a

957: characteristic response time given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:taucrho}),

958: %  In the limit of thin Debye

959: % layers $L \gg \kappa^{-1}$, this formula simplifies further,

960: % \begin{equation}

961: % {\hat \rho_e}(z=L,S\to 0) \simeq -\frac{\kappa^2 \epsilon_w

962: % V}{(1+\lambda_s\kappa)}\,\, \frac{S^{-1}} { 1+S \frac{L

963: % (1+\lambda_s/L)}{\kappa D(1+\lambda_s\kappa)}}

964: % \end{equation}

965: which is of order, $L/\kappa D = \lambda_D L /D = \tau_c$, for both thin and

966: thick double layers. Corrections introduce other mixed scales involving the

967: Stern length, such as $\lambda_S L/D$ and $\lambda_S \lambda_D/D$, as well as

968: the Debye time, $\lambda_D^2/D$.

969: 

970: 

971: Note that the same time scale can also be seen in the linear response to a weak

972: oscillatory potential, $V_{\pm}=\pm V \re (e^{i\omega \tau})$, which naturally

973: leads to

974: \begin{equation}

975: \rho_e(L,\tau) \sim K_\rho \, \re\left( \frac{e^{i\omega\tau}}{1 +

976:   i\omega\tau_\rho} \right)

977: \end{equation}

978: for frequencies well below the Debye frequency, $\omega \ll \omega_D =

979: D/\lambda_D^2$. Similar results for AC response near the point of zero charge

980: have been obtained by many authors, as cited above. The characteristic

981: frequency, $\omega_c = 1/\tau_c \approx D/\lambda_D L$, also arises the context

982: of AC electro-osmotic fluid pumping near

983: micro-electrodes~\cite{ramos98,ajdari00}, because diffuse-layer charging

984: controls the time-dependence of the effect.

985: 

986: 

987: \subsubsection{ Total Diffuse Charge in an Interface }

988: 

989: We now show that the same form of long-time exponential relaxation, with a

990: somewhat {\it different} characteristic time, also holds for other quantities,

991: such as the total diffuse charge near the cathode,

992: \begin{equation}

993: Q(t) = \int_{-L}^0 \rho(X,t) dX ,

994: \end{equation}

995: which plays a central role in the nonlinear analysis below. In the

996: limit of thin double layers, this is simply the total interfacial

997: charge (per unit area) of the diffuse part of the double layer. Here

998: we consider the total diffuse charge near a surface more generally,

999: even when the Debye screening length is much larger than the electrode

1000: separation. In the latter case, the concept of an ``interface'' is not

1001: well defined, since the two sides of the cell interact very strongly,

1002: but we can still study the overall separation of diffuse charge caused

1003: by the applied voltage.

1004: 

1005: Using Eqs.~(\ref{hPoi}) and (\ref{ES}), the Laplace transform of the

1006: total cathodic charge is,

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: \hat{Q}(S) = A k^{-1}\left[1 - \cosh(k L)\right] .

1009: \end{equation}

1010: Once again, this is difficult to invert analytically, so we focus on

1011: the long-time limit,

1012: \begin{equation}

1013: \hat{Q}(S) \sim \frac{K_Q S^{-1}}{1 + \tau_Q S} ,

1014: \end{equation}

1015: for $S \ll \kappa^2 D$, where

1016: \begin{equation}

1017: K_Q = \frac{ \varepsilon V \kappa \left[1 - \sech(k L)\right]

1018: }{\tanh(\kappa L)  + \kappa \lambda_S}

1019: \end{equation}

1020: and

1021: \begin{eqnarray}

1022: \tau_Q &=& \frac{L}{\kappa D} \left\{ \frac{1 + \frac{1}{2}\sech^2(\kappa

1023:       L) + \frac{3\lambda_S}{2L}}{\tanh(\kappa L) + \kappa \lambda_S}

1024:        \right. \nonumber \\

1025: & & \left. - \frac{\sech(\kappa L)\tanh(\kappa

1026:       L)}{2\left[1 - \sech(\kappa L)\right]} - \frac{1}{2\kappa L} \right\}   \label{eq:taucQ}

1027: \end{eqnarray}

1028: In the limit of thin double layers, the same basic time scale, $\tau_c

1029: = L/\kappa D = \lambda_D L /D$, arises as in the case of the surface

1030: charge density. A subtle observation is that the relaxation of the

1031: total interfacial charge, although still exponential, has a somewhat

1032: different time scale as a function of $\epsilon = \lambda_D/L$ and

1033: $\delta = \lambda_S/\lambda_D$. (See Fig.~\ref{fig:tc} below.) This

1034: apparently new result shows that charging dynamics has a nontrivial

1035: dependence on time and space, even for very weak potentials.

1036: 

1037: \begin{figure}

1038: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig2.eps}

1039: \caption{ Analytical results for the exponential relaxation time from

1040:   the linear theory for weak applied potentials, ($V \ll

1041:   kT/ze$). The time scale for relaxation of the surface diffuse-charge

1042:   density, $t_\rho$, from Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:tcrho}) is shown in (a)

1043:   and that of the total interfacial (half-cell) diffuse charge,

1044:   $t_Q$, from Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:tcQ}) in (b). In each case, the

1045:   charging time, scaled to $\tau_c=L/\kappa D =\lambda_D L/D$, is

1046:   plotted versus the dimensionless diffuse-layer thickness, $\epsilon

1047:   = \lambda_D/L$, for different dimensionless Stern-layer thicknesses,

1048:   $\delta = \lambda_S/\lambda_D = 0, 0.1, 1, 10$ (solid, dot, dash, and dot-dash lines, respectively).

1049:   \label{fig:tc} }

1050: \end{figure}

1051: 

1052: 

1053: 

1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1055: \section{ Dimensionless Formulation and Numerical Solution }

1056: \label{sec:nondim}

1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1058: 

1059: \subsection{ Basic Equations }

1060: \label{sec:eqns}

1061: 

1062: In preparation for analysis of the full,

1063: nonlinear problem, we cast it in a dimensionless form using $L$ as the

1064: reference length scale and $\tau_c=\lambda_D L/D$ as the reference

1065: time scale, as motivated by the linear theory. Time and space are then

1066: represented by $t=\tau D/\lambda_D L$ and $x=X/L$, and the problem

1067: is reformulated through reduced variables: $c=(C_+ +C_-)/2C_0$ for the

1068: local salt concentration, $\rho= (C_+-C_-)/2C_0=\rho_e/(2C_0ze)$ for

1069: the charge density, and $\phi=ze\Phi/k_BT$ for the electrostatic

1070: potential. The solution is determined by only three dimensionless

1071: parameters: $v=zeV/k_BT$, the ratio of the applied voltage to the

1072: thermal voltage, $\epsilon=\lambda_D/L$, the ratio of the Debye length

1073: to the system size, and $\delta=\lambda_S/\lambda_D$, the ratio of the

1074: Stern length to the Debye length~\cite{bonnefont01}.

1075: 

1076: With these definitions, the dimensionless equations for $-1 < x < 1$ and

1077: $t>0$ are

1078: \begin{eqnarray}

1079: \frac{\partial c}{\partial t} &=& \epsilon\, \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(

1080: \frac{\partial c}{\partial x} + \rho \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}\right)

1081: \label{eq:c} \\ \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} &=& \epsilon\,

1082: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} + c

1083: \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}\right)  \label{eq:rho} \\ -\epsilon^2 \,

1084: \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} &=& \rho  \label{eq:phi}

1085: \end{eqnarray}

1086: with boundary conditions at $x = \pm 1$,

1087: \begin{eqnarray}

1088: \frac{\partial c}{\partial x} + \rho \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} &=& 0

1089: \label{eq:bcc} \\ \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} + c \frac{\partial

1090: \phi}{\partial x} &=& 0 \label{eq:bcrho} \\ v - \delta\,\epsilon\,

1091: \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} &=& \pm\phi \label{eq:sternbc}

1092: \end{eqnarray}

1093: and initial conditions, $c(x,0)=1$, $\rho(x,0) = 0$, and $\phi(x,0) =

1094: v\, x$. Note that the limit of a negligible screening length, 

1095: $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, is {\it singular} because it is impossible to

1096: satisfy all the boundary conditions when $\epsilon=0$. Physically,

1097: this corresponds to the limit of exact charge neutrality, $\rho=0$,

1098: which is always violated to some degree at electrochemical interfaces.

1099: 

1100: The total diffuse charge near the cathode is

1101: \begin{equation}

1102: q(t) = \int_{-1}^0 \rho(x,t) dx ,

1103: \end{equation}

1104: scaled to $2zeC_0 L$. The dimensionless Faradaic current density is,

1105: \begin{equation}

1106: j_F = \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} + c \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}

1107: ,

1108: \end{equation}

1109: scaled to $2zeC_0D/L$ (Nernst's diffusion-limited

1110: current~\cite{bonnefont01}).

1111: 

1112: \subsection{ Time Scales for Linear Response }

1113: 

1114: The time scale for exponential relaxation of the surface charge

1115: density in the linear theory above, Eq.~(\ref{eq:taucrho}), has the

1116: dimensionless form,

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: t_{\rho} = \frac{(1 + 3\delta\epsilon/2)\,\coth(\epsilon^{-1}) -

1119:     \delta\,\csch^2(\epsilon^{-1})/2 - \epsilon }{

1120:     1+\delta\,\coth(\epsilon^{-1}) } .  \label{eq:tcrho}

1121: \end{equation}

1122: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc}(a), this formula shows that for a wide

1123: range of diffuse and Stern layer thicknesses, the basic time scale is

1124: always roughly of order, $\lambda_D L/D$, since $t_c$ is of order $1$.  In the

1125: limit of a thin diffuse double layer, the dimensionless time scale

1126: has the  form,

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: t_{\rho} = \frac{1}{1+\delta} +   \left(\frac{3\delta -

1129:   2}{2(1+\delta)}\right) \, \epsilon  + O(e^{-\epsilon^{-1}}).  \label{eq:tcrhothin}

1130: \end{equation}

1131: with exponentially small errors.  In the limit of a thin Stern layer,

1132: the time scale becomes

1133: \begin{eqnarray}

1134: t_{\rho} &=& \coth(\epsilon^{-1}) - \epsilon + \nonumber \\

1135: & &  \left[ 5\epsilon \coth(\epsilon^{-1}) - 2

1136: \coth(\epsilon^{-1}) - \csch^2(\epsilon^{-1}) \right] \,

1137: \frac{\delta}{2} \nonumber\\ & &  + \,

1138: O(\delta^2) .

1139: \end{eqnarray}

1140: For simultaneously thin Stern and diffuse layers, we obtain the simple

1141: result,

1142: \begin{equation}

1143: t_{\rho} \sim 1 - \epsilon - \delta

1144: \end{equation}

1145: which, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:tc}(a), shows that increasing either $\epsilon

1146: = \lambda_D/L$ or $\delta = \lambda_S/\lambda_D$ tends to reduce the

1147: charging time in this limit, compared to the leading-order value,

1148: $\lambda_D L /D$. Putting the units back, this expression can be

1149: written as,

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: \tau_{\rho} \sim \frac{\lambda_D L}{D} - \frac{\lambda_D^2}{D} -

1152: \frac{\lambda_S L}{D}

1153: \end{equation}

1154: for $\lambda_S \ll \lambda_D \ll L$, which clearly shows the Debye

1155: time, $\lambda_D^2/D$, appearing only as a small perturbation of the

1156: intermediate time scale, $\lambda_D L/D$, for the relaxation of the cell.

1157: 

1158: \begin{figure*}

1159: \includegraphics[width=5in]{fig3.eps}

1160: \caption{ Profiles for $t=0$ (solid), $0.1$ (dot), $0.5$ (dash),

1161: $1$ (dot-dash), $2$ (dot-dot-dot-dash), $\infty$ (long dash) of the

1162: dimensionless charge density, $\rho(x,t)$, for dimensionless voltages

1163: (a) $v=0.1$ and (b) $v=1$, and of the dimensionless potential, $\phi$,

1164: for (c) $v=0.1$ and (d) $v=1$ ($\epsilon=0.05$,

1165: $\delta=0.1$).

1166: \label{fig:fields} }

1167: \end{figure*}

1168: 

1169: 

1170: Similar results hold for the relaxation time for the total half-cell

1171: charge, Eq.~(\ref{eq:taucQ}), which has the dimensionless form,

1172: \begin{equation}

1173: t_Q = \frac{1 + \frac{1}{2}\sech^2(\epsilon^{-1}) +

1174:   \frac{3\delta\epsilon}{2}}{\tanh(\epsilon^{-1}) + \delta} -

1175: \frac{\epsilon}{2} - \frac{\sech(\epsilon^{-1})\tanh(\epsilon^{-1})}{2\left[1 -

1176:     \sech(\epsilon^{-1})\right]}   \label{eq:tcQ}

1177: \end{equation}

1178: For thin double layers, we obtain the same leading-order behavior,

1179: \begin{equation}

1180: t_Q \sim \frac{1}{1+\delta} - \left[ \frac{1-2\delta}{2(1+\delta)}

1181:   \right]\,\epsilon +  O(e^{-\epsilon^{-1}}) \label{eq:tcQthin}

1182: \end{equation}

1183: although the correction term is somewhat different for thick diffuse

1184: layers. For simultaneously thin diffuse and Stern layers, the

1185: dimensionless relaxation time for the total charge becomes,

1186: \begin{equation}

1187: t_Q \sim 1 - \frac{\epsilon}{2} - \delta .

1188: \end{equation}

1189: For a detailed summary of how the two time scales, $t_{\rho}$ and $t_Q$,

1190: depend on the parameters, $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, see Figure \ref{fig:tc} (a)

1191: and (b), respectively.

1192: 

1193: 

1194: \subsection{ Numerical Solution}

1195: %\label{sec:num}

1196: 

1197: Our dimensionless model problem, stated in Section ~\ref{sec:eqns}, is

1198: straightforward to solve numerically using finite differences, at

1199: least if $\epsilon$ is not too small. (Ironically, as shown below,

1200: analytical progress is much easier in this singular limit.)  To

1201: resolve the boundary layer where the gradient is large, a variable

1202: size mesh is used, along with second-order-accurate differencing that

1203: accounts for the variable grid sizes.  The third-order Adams-Bashforth

1204: method is used in time.  The number of the grid points and the 

1205: ratio of the smallest to largest grid size are

1206: varied depending on the values of $\epsilon$ and $v$.  

1207: The numerical convergence is verified though multiple runs of

1208: different resolutions, and as a result, up to 1024 points are used

1209: in calculations for higher $v$.

1210: 

1211: To maximize the importance of diffuse charge,

1212: we first consider a rather larger value of $\epsilon$, even for a

1213: micro-electrochemical system, $\epsilon = 0.05$, say for $\lambda_D =

1214: 5$ nm and $L = 0.1 \mu$m. The Stern length is always of molecular

1215: dimensions, so we choose $\lambda_S = 5$ \AA, and thus $\delta =

1216: 0.1$. The time evolutions of the charge and potential are shown in

1217: Fig.~\ref{fig:fields} for $v = 0.1$ and $v=1$. At room temperature

1218: (and $z=1$), these voltages correspond to $V = 2.5$ mV and

1219: $V=25$ mV, respectively, which, when transferred to the diffuse layer

1220: after screening give maximum electric fields of order $10$ V/$\mu$m.

1221: 

1222: \begin{figure}

1223: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4.eps}

1224: \caption{ (a) The dimensionless current density, $j(t)$ (in units of

1225: $2zeC_0 D/L$), and (b) the dimensionless total diffuse charge on the

1226: cathodic side of the cell, $q(t)$ (in units of $2 z e C_0 L$), scaled

1227: to $q_o = v/(1+\delta)$, versus dimensionless time, $t$ (in units of

1228: $\tau_c = \lambda_D L/ D$). Numerical results for dimensionless

1229: voltages, $v= 1$ (dot), $2$ (dash), $3$ (dot-dash), and $4$

1230: (dot-dot-dot-dash) are compared with linear dynamics in the thin

1231: double-layer limit: $q(t)/q_o \sim 1 - e^{-(1+\delta) t}$ and $j(t)/v

1232: \sim e^{-(1+\delta) t}$ (solid lines) as $v, \epsilon \rightarrow 0$.

1233: The breakdown of linear theory for $v \geq 1$ is highlighted in (c),

1234: where the data in (b) is replotted for longer times. \label{fig:q} }

1235: \end{figure}

1236: 

1237: 

1238: The current, $j$, and the total cathodic diffuse charge, $q$, are

1239: plotted versus time, $t$, in Fig.~\ref{fig:q} for applied voltages, $v

1240: = 1,2,3,$ and $4$. In all cases, the linearization is accurate at early

1241: times ($t<1$) since the dimensionless voltage across the diffuse layer

1242: remains small ($<1$). For $v=1$, the linear approximation is

1243: reasonable for all times, but for somewhat larger voltages, $v= 2, 3,$ and $4$,

1244: the relative error becomes unacceptable at long times, $t > 1$. 

1245: %I removed a paragraph change here --K 

1246: Not only is the limiting value of the total charge significantly

1247: underestimated, but the dynamics also continues for a longer time,

1248: with a qualitatively different charging profile.  The largest applied

1249: voltage, $v=4$, shows this effect most clearly, as there is a

1250: secondary relaxation at a much larger time scale of order $t =

1251: 1/\epsilon = 20$. Unlike the other cases, which display the expected

1252: steady increase in charge of an RC circuit, for $v\geq 4$ the total

1253: charge quickly reaches a maximum value, after the initial RC charging

1254: process, and then slowly decays toward its limiting value.

1255: 

1256: We are not aware of any previous theoretical prediction of such a

1257: non-monotonic charging profile, so it is a major focus of this work

1258: (in sections ~\ref{sec:higher} and \ref{sec:strong}). It is

1259: reminiscent of the Warburg impedance due to bulk diffusion of

1260: current-carrying ions at the time scale, $\tau_L = L^2/D$, or

1261: $1/\epsilon$ in our units, in (linear) response to Faradaic processes,

1262: which consume or produce them at an electrode. Here, however, there

1263: are no Faradaic processes, so any such bulk diffusion must be related

1264: to the adsorption or desorption of ions in the diffuse part of the

1265: double layer. Moreover, the over-relaxation of the charge density is

1266: part of the {\it non-linear} response to a large applied voltage, so

1267: it will require more sophisticated analytical methods.

1268:  

1269: 

1270: 

1271: 

1272: 

1273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1274: \section{ Weakly Nonlinear Dynamics }

1275: \label{sec:nonlin}

1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1277: 

1278: \subsection{ Asymptotic Analysis for Thin Double Layers }

1279: 

1280: The remarkable robustness of the charging time well into the nonlinear

1281: regime (at least for the primary relaxation phase) can be predicted analytically using matched

1282: asymptotic expansions in the singular limit of thin double layers,

1283: $\epsilon = \lambda_D/L \ll 1$. Most (if not all) previous studies of

1284: time-dependent problems using asymptotic analysis have scaled time to

1285: the diffusion time, $\tau_L = L^2/D$. In this section, we will see how

1286: the correct charging time scale, $\tau_c = \lambda_D L/D$, arises

1287: systematically from asymptotic matching at leading order.  We also

1288: consider, apparently for the first time, the general case of arbitrary

1289: voltage, $v= ze V/k_BT$, and Stern-layer thickness, $\delta =

1290: \lambda_S/\lambda_D$, with a time-dependent zeta-potential (i.e. potential drop

1291: over the diffuse layer). We also

1292: study higher-order corrections, which involve some bulk diffusion at

1293: the time scale, $\tau_L$.

1294: 

1295: As usual, matched asymptotic expansions only produce a series of

1296: ``asymptotic'' approximations to the solution, in the sense that

1297: higher terms in the expansions vanish more quickly than the leading

1298: terms as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, with the other parameters, $v$ and

1299: $\delta$, held fixed at arbitrary values. For any fixed $\epsilon >0$

1300: (no matter how small), there could be $\epsilon$-dependent

1301: restrictions on $v$ and $\delta$ for various truncated expansions to

1302: produce accurate approximations. We refer to the regime where such

1303: conditions hold as ``weakly nonlinear'', as opposed to the ``strongly

1304: nonlinear'' regime where the asymptotic expansions break down

1305: (described below in section~\ref{sec:strong}).

1306: 

1307: 

1308: \subsection{ Outer and Inner Expansions }

1309: 

1310: 

1311: We begin by seeking regular asymptotic expansions (denoted by a bar

1312: accent) in the bulk ``outer'' region, e.g.

1313: \begin{equation}

1314: c(x,t) \sim \bar{c}(x,t) = \bar{c}_0 + \epsilon \, \bar{c}_1 +

1315: \epsilon^2\, \bar{c}_2 + \ldots .   \label{eq:cout}

1316: \end{equation}

1317: Substituting such expansions into Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c})--(\ref{eq:phi})

1318: and equating terms order by order yields a hierarchy of

1319: partial-differential equations. At leading order in $\epsilon$, we

1320: find that the bulk concentration does not vary in time, $\bar{c}_0 = 

1321: 1$, simply because the charging time scale, $\tau_c$, is much {\it

1322: smaller} than the bulk diffusion time scale, $\tau_L$. The

1323: leading-order potential is linear, 

1324: \begin{equation}

1325: \bar{\phi}_0 = \bar{j}_0(t)\,  x,  \label{eq:phi0}

1326: \end{equation}

1327: where $\bar{j}_0(0) = v$. Since the leading-order bulk concentration is

1328: uniform, $\bar{j}_0(t)$ is the leading-order current density. The

1329: leading-order charge density,

1330: \begin{equation}

1331: \bar{\rho}_2 = -\frac{\partial^2 \bar{\phi}_0}{\partial x^2}

1332: \end{equation}

1333: vanishes because the leading-order potential, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:phi0}), is harmonic, although

1334: at next order, $O(\epsilon^3)$, a nonzero

1335: bulk charge density, $\bar{\rho}_3$, arises due to concentration polarization. (See below.)

1336: These arguments justify the usual assumption of bulk electroneutrality

1337: to high accuracy, even during interfacial charging, as long as the

1338: dynamics are ``weakly nonlinear''.

1339: 

1340: The regular outer approximations must be matched with singular ``inner''

1341: approximations in the boundary layers.  The problem has the following

1342: symmetries about the origin,

1343: \begin{equation}

1344: \begin{array}{c}

1345: c(-x,t) = c(x,t) \\ 

1346: \rho(-x,t) = -\rho(x,t) \\

1347:  \phi(-x,t) = -\phi(x,t)

1348: \end{array}

1349:  \label{eq:sym}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: so we consider only the boundary layer at the cathode,

1352: $x=-1$, by transforming the equations to the inner coordinate, $y =

1353: (x+1)/\epsilon$:

1354: \begin{eqnarray}

1355: \epsilon \, \frac{\partial \tilde{c}}{\partial t} &=&

1356: \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left( \frac{\partial \tilde{c}}{\partial y} +

1357: \tilde{\rho} \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}}{\partial y}\right) \label{eq:cin}

1358: \\ \epsilon \, \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}}{\partial t} &=&

1359: \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left( \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}}{\partial y}

1360: + \tilde{c} \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}}{\partial y}\right)

1361: \label{eq:rhoin}

1362: \\ -\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{\phi}}{\partial y^2} &= &\tilde{\rho} \label{eq:phiin}

1363: \end{eqnarray}

1364: This scaling removes the singular perturbation in

1365: Poisson's equation, so we can seek regular asymptotic expansions for the

1366: inner approximations (denoted by tilde accents), e.g.

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: c(x,t) \sim \tilde{c}(y,t) = \tilde{c}_0 + \epsilon \, \tilde{c}_1 +

1369: \epsilon^2 \, \tilde{c}_2 + \ldots

1370: \end{equation}

1371: Matching with the bulk approximations {\it in

1372: space} involves the usual van Dyke conditions, e.g.

1373: \begin{equation}

1374: \lim_{y\rightarrow\infty} \tilde{c}(y,t) \sim \lim_{x\rightarrow -1}

1375: \bar{c}(x,t) ,

1376: \end{equation}

1377: which implies $\tilde{c}_0(\infty,t) = \bar{c}_0(-1,t)$,

1378: $\tilde{c}_1(\infty,t) = \bar{c}_1(-1,t)$, etc., but we will also have

1379: to make sure that the expansions are properly synchronized {\it

1380: in time}. In particular, we will have to worry about the appearance of

1381: multiple time scales at different orders.

1382: 

1383: Substituting the inner expansions into the rescaled 

1384: equations ~(\ref{eq:cin})--(\ref{eq:phiin}) causes the time-dependent terms

1385: to drop out at leading order.  Physically, this quasi-equilibrium

1386: occurs because the charging time, $\tau_c$, is much {\it larger} than

1387: the Debye time, $\tau_D$, characteristic of local dynamics in the

1388: boundary layer (at the scale of the Debye length, $\lambda_D$). As a

1389: result, we systematically arrive at classical Gouy-Chapman profiles

1390: for the equilibrium diffuse layer at leading order,

1391: \begin{equation}

1392: \tilde{c}_\pm \sim e^{\mp \tilde{\psi}}, \ \ \tilde{c}_0 = \cosh

1393: \tilde{\psi}_0 , \ \ \tilde{\rho}_0 = - \sinh \tilde{\psi}_0

1394: \end{equation}

1395: where the excess voltage relative to the bulk, 

1396: \begin{equation}

1397: \tilde{\psi}(y,t) =

1398: \tilde{\phi}(y,t) - \bar{\phi}(-1,t) \sim \tilde{\psi}_0 + \epsilon\, 

1399: \tilde{\psi}_1 + \ldots,

1400: \end{equation}

1401: satisfies the Poisson-Boltzmann equation at leading order,

1402: \begin{equation}

1403: \frac{\partial^2 \tilde{\psi}_0}{\partial y^2} = \sinh \tilde{\psi}_0 .

1404: \end{equation}

1405: Note that matching implies $\tilde{\psi}_0(\infty,t) =

1406: \tilde{\psi}_1(\infty,t)=\ldots = 0$. The dimensionless zeta

1407: potential, $\tilde{\zeta}(t) = \tilde{\psi}(0,t)$, varies as the

1408: diffuse layer charges.

1409: 

1410: After the first integration we apply matching to the electric

1411: field,

1412: \begin{equation}

1413: \frac{\partial\tilde{\phi}}{\partial y}(\infty,t) \sim \epsilon \, 

1414: \frac{\partial\bar{\phi}}{\partial x}(-1,t) \ \longrightarrow \ 

1415: \frac{\partial\tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial y}(\infty,t) = 0,

1416: \label{eq:Ematch}

1417: \end{equation}

1418: to obtain 

1419: \begin{equation}

1420: \frac{\partial \tilde{\psi}_0}{\partial y} = - 2 \, \sinh(\tilde{\psi}_0/2).

1421: \label{eq:psiy}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: After the second integration,

1424: \begin{equation}

1425: \tilde{\psi}_0(y,t) = - 4\, \tanh^{-1}(e^{-(y+K(t))}),   \label{eq:psiin0}

1426: \end{equation}

1427: we are left with a constant, 

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: K(t) = \log\coth (-\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)/4),   \label{eq:K}

1430: \end{equation}

1431: to be determined from $\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)$ (below) by the Stern

1432: boundary condition at the cathode surface, $y=0$, and the coupling to

1433: the bulk region.  The offset parameter, $K(t)$, which also appears in

1434: the concentration and charge density,

1435: \begin{eqnarray}

1436: \tilde{c}_0(y,t) &= & 1 + 2\, \csch^2(y + K(t)) \label{eq:cin0} \\ 

1437: \tilde{\rho}_0(y,t) &= & 2\, \csch(y+K(t))\coth(y+K(t)) \label{eq:rhoin0}

1438: \end{eqnarray}

1439: is quite sensitive to Faradaic reactions~\cite{bonnefont01}, but here

1440: we focus only on the effect of compact-layer capacitance.

1441: 

1442: 

1443: \subsection{ Time-dependent Matching }

1444: 

1445: It seems we have reached a paradox: Both the bulk and the boundary

1446: layers are in quasi-equilibrium at leading order, and yet there must

1447: be some dynamics, if we have chosen the proper time scale. The

1448: resolution lies in taking a closer look at asymptotic

1449: matching. Physically, we are motivated to consider the dynamics of the

1450: total diffuse charge, which has the scaling, $q(t) \sim \epsilon\, \tilde{q}(t)

1451: $, where

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: \tilde{q} = \int_0^\infty \tilde{\rho}(y,t)\, dy \sim \tilde{q}_0

1454: + \epsilon\, \tilde{q}_1 + \epsilon^2 \, \tilde{q}_2  + \ldots \label{eq:qt}

1455: \end{equation}

1456: Taking a time derivative using Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhoin}) and applying the no-flux

1457: boundary condition (\ref{eq:bcrho}), we find

1458: \begin{equation}

1459: \frac{d \tilde{q}}{dt} = \lim_{y \to \infty} \frac{1}{\epsilon}

1460: \left(\frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}}{\partial y} + \tilde{c} \frac{\partial

1461: \tilde{\phi}}{\partial y}\right)   

1462:  \sim \lim_{x\to -1} \left(\frac{\partial

1463: \bar{\rho}}{\partial x} + \bar{c} \frac{\partial \bar{\phi}}{\partial

1464: x}\right)

1465: \label{eq:qmatch}

1466: \end{equation}

1467: where we have applied matching to the {\it derivatives} (flux

1468: densities).  Substituting the inner and outer expansions yields a

1469: hierarchy of matching conditions. At leading order, we have

1470: \begin{equation}

1471: \frac{d\tilde{q}_0}{dt}(t) = \bar{j}_0(t),

1472:   \label{eq:dq}

1473: \end{equation}

1474: which shows that we have chosen the right time scale because this is a

1475: balance of O(1) quantities.  Moreover, it can be shown that any other

1476: choice of scaling would lead to a breakdown of asymptotic matching in

1477: the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. (For example, in the analogous

1478: Equations (42)--(43) of Ref.~\cite{gonzalez00} for small AC

1479: potentials, the time-dependent term vanishes in this limit, showing

1480: that the proper scaling was not used.) Therefore, the correct charging

1481: time scale, Eq.~(\ref{eq:tmixed}), in the weakly nonlinear regime

1482: follows systematically from time-dependent asymptotic matching at

1483: leading order.

1484: 

1485: The physical interpretation of Equation~(\ref{eq:dq}) is clear: At

1486: leading order, the boundary layer acts like a capacitor, whose

1487: total charge (per unit area), $\tilde{q}$, changes in response to the

1488: transient Faradaic current density, $\bar{j}(t)$, from the bulk.  The

1489: matching condition can also be understood physically as a statement of

1490: current continuity across the diffuse

1491: layer. Substituting Poisson's equation~(\ref{eq:phiin}) into

1492: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qt}), integrating, and matching the electric field using

1493: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ematch}), we see that the left hand side of

1494: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dq}) is simply the leading-order (dimensionless) {\it

1495: displacement current

1496: density}~\cite{bonnefont01,bonnefont_thesis,brumleve78,cohen65} at the

1497: cathode surface,

1498: \begin{equation}

1499: \frac{d \tilde{q}_0}{dt} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \frac{\partial

1500: \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial y}(0,t) = \tilde{j}_0(t) ,

1501: \end{equation}

1502: so the matching condition simply reads, $\tilde{j}_0(t) =

1503: \bar{j}_0(t)$. This transient displacement current exists in the

1504: external circuit, even if there is no Faradaic current.

1505: 

1506: 

1507: 

1508: \subsection{ Leading-order Dynamics }

1509: 

1510: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phiin}), (\ref{eq:Ematch}) and (\ref{eq:psiy}),

1511: the integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qt}) can be performed at leading order to

1512: obtain the Chapman's formula for the total diffuse charge,

1513: \begin{equation}

1514: \tilde{q}_0 = - 2\, \sinh(\tilde{\zeta}_0/2) . \label{eq:qzeta}

1515: \end{equation}

1516: The Stern boundary condition, Eq.~(\ref{eq:sternbc}), then yields,

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: %\Delta\phi_D + 2\, \delta\, \sinh(\Delta\phi_D/2) = \Delta\phi_i ,

1519: \tilde{\zeta}_0 + 2\, \delta\, \sinh(\tilde{\zeta}_0/2) = \bar{j}_0(t)

1520: - v = \tilde{\Psi}_0 ,

1521: \label{eq:phid}

1522: \end{equation}

1523: where $\tilde{\Psi}(t) = - v - \bar{\phi}(-1,t) \sim \tilde{\Psi}_0 +

1524: \epsilon \tilde{\Psi}_1 + \ldots$ is the total voltage across the

1525: compact and diffuse layers.  Substituting into the matching condition,

1526: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dq}), we obtain an ordinary, initial-value problem,

1527: either for the leading-order double-layer voltage

1528: % ($ \Delta\phi_i(t)\rightarrow v$),

1529: \begin{equation}

1530: -\tilde{C}_0(\tilde{\Psi}_0)\, \frac{d\tilde{\Psi}_0}{dt} =

1531: \tilde{\Psi}_0 + v,\ \ \ \tilde{\Psi}_0(0)=0, \label{eq:PsiODE}

1532: \end{equation}

1533: or for the leading-order current density

1534: % ($j(t) \rightarrow 0$),

1535: \begin{equation}

1536: \tilde{C}_0(\bar{j}_0-v)\, \frac{d\bar{j}_0}{dt} = -\bar{j}_0 , \ \ \

1537: \bar{j}_0(0) = v,  \label{eq:jODE}

1538: \end{equation}

1539: where $\tilde{C}_0(\tilde{\Psi}_0) = d\tilde{q}_0/d\tilde{\Psi}_0$ is

1540: the differential capacitance for the double layer as a function of its

1541: total voltage, relative to the potential of zero charge. 

1542: 

1543: \begin{figure}

1544: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{RC.eps}

1545: \caption{ Sketch of the equivalent RC circuit for the leading-order

1546: weakly nonlinear approximation: compact-layer and diffuse-layer

1547: capacitors in series with a bulk resistor. Although remarkably robust,

1548: the circuit approximation is violated by higher-order corrections,

1549: especially at large voltages.

1550: \label{fig:RC}}

1551: \end{figure}

1552: 

1553: The effective double-layer capacitance is given by

1554: \begin{equation}

1555: \tilde{C}_0 = \frac{1}{\mbox{sech}(\tilde{\zeta}_0/2) + \delta}   \label{eq:Ci}

1556: \end{equation}

1557: where $\tilde{\zeta}_0$ is related to $\tilde{\Psi}_0$ by

1558: Eq.~(\ref{eq:phid}). A similar formula arises in the classical

1559: circuit model of Macdonald~\cite{macdonald54}. Indeed, the

1560: leading-order charging dynamics from asymptotic analysis corresponds

1561: exactly to the nonlinear RC circuit shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:RC}. We

1562: expect, however, that the {\it ad hoc} circuit approximation cannot

1563: describe higher-order asymptotic approximations, where the finite

1564: thickness of the double layer becomes important.

1565: 

1566: Linearizing for small voltages, $\tilde{C}_0 \sim

1567: 1/(1+\delta)$, we obtain the same results as before in the limit

1568: $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, now by a completely different method,

1569: \begin{eqnarray}

1570: \bar{j}_0(t) &\sim& v\, e^{-(1+\delta) t} = v + \tilde{\Psi}_0(t) \\

1571: \tilde{q}_0(t) &\sim& \frac{v (1 - e^{-(1+\delta) t})}{1+\delta}  

1572: \end{eqnarray}

1573: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:q} for $\delta=0.1$, the linearization

1574: describes the charging dynamics fairly accurately, even for somewhat large

1575: voltages ($v \approx 1$), as long as $\delta$ is not too small.  One way to understand

1576: this is that the total differential capacitance satisfies the uniform

1577: bounds,

1578: \begin{equation}

1579: \frac{1}{1+\delta} = \tilde{C}_0(0) \leq \tilde{C}_0(\tilde{\Psi}_0) <

1580: \tilde{C}_0(\infty) = \frac{1}{\delta} , \label{eq:Cbound}

1581: \end{equation}

1582: in the linear and nonlinear regimes. Moreover, the linearization is

1583: always accurate at early times (up to $t \approx 1$ or $\tau \approx

1584: \tau_c$) for any applied voltage, as long as the initial

1585: zeta potential (or diffuse charge) is small. This is also clearly seen

1586: in Fig.~\ref{fig:q}.

1587: 

1588: 

1589: \begin{figure}

1590: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig6.eps}

1591: \caption{ The comparison of the full numerical solution with the

1592: leading-order asymptotic results: (a) $j/v$, (b) $q/q_{lin}$ (early

1593: evolution), and (c) $q/q_{lin}$ (long time evolution).  The full

1594: numerical solution are shown with dot ($v=1$), dot-dash (with open squares in (c)) ($v=2$) and

1595: long dash with open triangles ($v=3$).  The leading-order asymptotic results are

1596: plotted with dash ($v=1$), dot-dot-dot-dash (with filled squares in (c)) ($v=2$) and long dash with filled triangles

1597: ($v=3$).  The curves for $v=3$ are omitted in (a) and (b) for clarity.

1598: The solid lines show the linear dynamics in the thin double-layer

1599: limit.  \label{fig:qa}}

1600: \end{figure}

1601: 

1602: 

1603: The dynamical equation (\ref{eq:PsiODE}) or (\ref{eq:jODE}) is

1604: first-order and separable, so its exact solution is easily expressed

1605: in integral form,

1606: \begin{equation}

1607: \tilde{\Psi}_0(t) = \bar{j}_0(t) - v = - F^{-1}(t)  \label{eq:jexact}

1608: \end{equation}

1609: where 

1610: \begin{equation}

1611: F(z)  = \int_0^z \frac{\tilde{C}_0(u)\,du}{u+v}

1612: \label{eq:F}

1613: \end{equation}

1614: The integral can be evaluated numerically and the total charge

1615: recovered from the Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qzeta}) and (\ref{eq:phid}). The

1616: results in Fig.~\ref{fig:qa} show that the leading-order dynamics

1617: compares fairly well with the numerical solution to the full nonlinear

1618: problem for $\epsilon=0.05$ and $\delta=0.1$, at least for the decay

1619: of the current density, especially at early times ($t \approx 1$). The

1620: limiting value of the total diffuse charge is also approximated much

1621: better than in the linear theory (Fig.~\ref{fig:q}), due to the

1622: nonlinear differential capacitance, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ci}). For large

1623: voltages ($v > 1$), however, total charge shows some secondary

1624: dynamics at longer time scales ($t \gg 1$), which is not fully

1625: captured by the leading-order asymptotic approximation (or the

1626: corresponding circuit model). As we shall see below, this can only be

1627: understood by considering higher-order terms which violate the circuit

1628: approximation.

1629: 

1630: 

1631: % CONVERGENCE TEST

1632: %\begin{figure}

1633: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{figconv.eps}

1634: %\caption{

1635: %\label{fig:figconv} }

1636: %\end{figure}

1637: 

1638: 

1639: For moderately large voltages ($v \approx 1$), we can expand around

1640: $u=v$ in the integrand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:F}) and obtain a

1641: long-time exponential decay,

1642: \begin{equation}

1643: \bar{j}_0(t)  = v + \tilde{\Psi}_0(t) \propto e^{- t/\tilde{C}_0(v)} 

1644: \label{eq:jlate}

1645: \end{equation}

1646: as $t \rightarrow \infty$. This reveals a (dimensionless)

1647: characteristic time, $t_c = \tilde{C}_0(v)$, which is larger than that

1648: of the linear regime, $t_c = \tilde{C}_0(0) = 1/(1+\delta)$, by at most

1649: a factor of $1+1/\delta$ ($=11$ in our numerical examples). Although

1650: this factor is non-negligible, the characteristic time, $\tau_c$, is

1651: still the basic time scale, rather than $\tau_L$ and $\tau_D$ which differ

1652: from $\tau_c$ by factors of $\epsilon$, i.e. usually two or more

1653: orders of magnitude. As the voltage is increased, however,

1654: nonlinearity always becomes important, and one of its generic effects

1655: is to slow down the relaxation process.

1656: 

1657: 

1658: In order to simplify the response function, $F(z)$, and other

1659: quantities, it is useful to consider the regular limit of thin Stern

1660: layers, $\delta\rightarrow 0$ (taken after the singular limit of thin

1661: diffuse layers, $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$). In this common physical

1662: regime, where $\lambda_S \ll \lambda_D \ll L$, the following

1663: asymptotic expansions can be derived by iteration~\cite{hinch} from

1664: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qzeta}), (\ref{eq:phid}), and (\ref{eq:Ci}):

1665: \begin{eqnarray}

1666: \tilde{\zeta}_0 &\sim& \tilde{\Psi}_0 - 2\delta \sinh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2}

1667: + \delta^2 \sinh \tilde{\Psi}_0 + \ldots \label{eq:phida} \\ 

1668: \tilde{q}_0 &\sim& - 2 \sinh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} 

1669: + \delta \sinh \tilde{\Psi}_0 \nonumber\\ &

1670: & - \delta^2 \left( \sinh \tilde{\Psi}_0 \cosh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} +

1671: \sinh^3\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} \right)

1672: \label{eq:qa} \\ 

1673: \tilde{C}_0 &\sim& \cosh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} 

1674: - \delta \cosh \tilde{\Psi}_0  \nonumber \\ & & +

1675: \delta^2 \left( \cosh \tilde{\Psi}_0\, \cosh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} +

1676: \frac{1}{2}\, \sinh \tilde{\Psi}_0 \, \sinh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2}

1677: \right. \nonumber \\

1678: & & \left. + \frac{3}{2}\, \sinh^2\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2}\,

1679: \cosh\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_0}{2} \right)  \label{eq:Ca} 

1680: \end{eqnarray}

1681: The response function can then be expanded in somewhat simpler (but

1682: still nontrivial) integrals,

1683: \begin{equation}

1684: F(z) \sim \int_0^z \frac{\cosh(u/2)\, du}{u+v} - \delta \int_0^z

1685: \frac{\cosh(u)\, dx}{u+v} + \ldots

1686: \end{equation}

1687: in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0$.

1688: 

1689: 

1690: %\begin{figure}

1691: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig5.eps}

1692: %\caption{ For $\delta=0.1$, plots of (a) the diffuse-layer voltage,

1693: %$\Delta\phi_D$, and (b) the differential total capacitance, each

1694: %versus the dimensionless interfacial voltage, $-\tilde{\Psi}_0$ (dotted

1695: %lines).  (All quantities are dimensionless.) The corresponding points

1696: %test the asymptotic approximations, Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:phida}) and

1697: %(\protect\ref{eq:Ca}), to first (cross) and second order (diamond) in

1698: %$\delta$, respectively.\label{fig:C} }

1699: %\end{figure}

1700: 

1701: 

1702: 

1703: \begin{figure*}

1704: \includegraphics[width=6in]{fig7.eps}

1705: \caption{ The potential (a), charge density (b) and concentration (c)

1706: at $t=1$ for a large dimensionless voltage, $v=1$, with

1707: $\epsilon=0.05$ and $\delta=0.1$. The full numerical solution (dashed 

1708: lines) is compared with the leading-order uniformly valid

1709: approximation (dotted lines),

1710: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:uphi})--(\ref{eq:urho}).  The analytical 

1711: approximations are almost indistinguishable from the numerical

1712: solutions for $\phi$ and $\rho$, but not for $c$, which shows

1713: errors of a few percent ($< \epsilon$) just outside the double layers.

1714: \label{fig:compare} }

1715: \end{figure*}

1716: 

1717: 

1718: \subsection{ Uniformly Valid Approximations }

1719: 

1720: Asymptotic analysis tells us not only the behavior of integrated

1721: quantities like total charge and voltage, but also the complete

1722: spatio-temporal profiles of the charge density and potential. As

1723: usual, uniformly valid approximations (in space) are constructed by

1724: adding the outer and inner approximations and subtracting the

1725: overlaps. Taking advantage of the symmetries in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sym}), we

1726: obtain the following leading-order approximations:

1727: \begin{eqnarray}

1728: \phi(x,t) &\sim& \overline{j}(t)\, x +

1729: \tilde{\psi}_0\left(\frac{1+x}{\epsilon},t\right) - 

1730: \tilde{\psi}_0\left(\frac{1-x}{\epsilon},t\right) \label{eq:uphi}  \\ c(x,t)

1731: &\sim& \tilde{c}_0\left(\frac{1+x}{\epsilon},t\right) +

1732: \tilde{c}_0\left(\frac{1-x}{\epsilon},t\right) - 1 \label{eq:uc} \\

1733: \rho(x,t) &\sim& \tilde{\rho}_0\left(\frac{1+x}{\epsilon},t\right) -

1734: \tilde{\rho}_0\left(\frac{1-x}{\epsilon},t\right) \label{eq:urho}

1735: \end{eqnarray}

1736: where the boundary-layer contributions are given by

1737: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:psiin0})--(\ref{eq:rhoin0}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:phid}),

1738: which express the effect of the compact layer. The time dependence of

1739: the leading-order approximations is entirely determined by the bulk

1740: current density, $\bar{j}_0(t)$, or the double-layer voltage,

1741: $\tilde{\Psi}_0(t)$, via Eqs.~(\ref{eq:jexact}) and (\ref{eq:F}).

1742: 

1743: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare}, the time-dependent approximations

1744: for $\phi$ and $\rho$ are in excellent agreement with our numerical

1745: results well into the nonlinear regime ($v=1$), even for a fairly

1746: large boundary-layer thickness, $\epsilon = 0.05$. The charge density

1747: clearly shows the expected separation into three regions: a neutral

1748: bulk with two charged boundary layers of $O(\epsilon)$ width.  On the

1749: other hand, for the same parameters, the leading-order approximation

1750: of $c$ is not nearly as good. As expected, the concentration exhibits

1751: a homogeneous bulk region and two inhomogeneous boundary layers of

1752: $O(\epsilon)$ width, which are fairly well described, but there are

1753: also intermediate regions of depleted concentration extending far into

1754: the bulk, which are not captured at leading order.

1755: 

1756: 

1757: 

1758: \section{ Higher-Order Effects }

1759: \label{sec:higher}

1760: 

1761: \subsection{ Neutral-Salt Adsorption by the Double Layer }

1762:  

1763: We have seen that each diffuse-charge layer acquires an excess salt 

1764: concentration relative to the outer region. At leading order, however,

1765: there is no sign of how the extra ions got there.  This paradox, which

1766: also applies to circuit models, is apparent from symmetry alone,

1767: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sym}) --- Diffuse charge near the cathode grows by

1768: bulk electromigration, which creates equal and opposite diffuse charge

1769: near the anode. In contrast, the excess concentration is the same in

1770: both double layers, so it can only arrive there by {\it diffusion} of

1771: neutral electrolyte from the bulk, which is excluded at leading order.

1772: 

1773: The key to understanding higher-order terms, therefore, is the total

1774: excess concentration per unit surface area in (say) the cathodic

1775: diffuse layer, $w(t) = \epsilon\, \tilde{w}(t)$, where

1776: \begin{equation}

1777: \tilde{w}(t) = \int_0^\infty \left[\tilde{c}(y,t)-\bar{c}_0(-1,t)\right]

1778: dy = \tilde{w}_0(t) + \epsilon\, \tilde{w}_1(t) + \ldots   \label{eq:w}

1779: \end{equation}

1780: is analogous to the scaled total diffuse charge, $\tilde{q}(t)$. (Note

1781: that $\bar{c}_0(-1,t)=1$ in our model problem, but Equation

1782: ~(\ref{eq:w}) is more general.)  We proceed with matching in the same

1783: manner as above.  Taking a time derivative using Eq.~(\ref{eq:cin})

1784: and applying the no-flux boundary condition (\ref{eq:bcc}), we find

1785: \begin{equation}

1786: \frac{d \tilde{w}}{dt} = \lim_{y \to \infty} \frac{1}{\epsilon}

1787: \left(\frac{\partial \tilde{c}}{\partial y} + \tilde{\rho} \frac{\partial

1788: \tilde{\phi}}{\partial y}\right)   

1789:  \sim \lim_{x\to -1} \left(\frac{\partial

1790: \bar{c}}{\partial x} + \bar{\rho} \frac{\partial \bar{\phi}}{\partial

1791: x}\right)

1792: \label{eq:wmatch-full}

1793: \end{equation}

1794: Substituting the inner and outer expansions yields another 

1795: hierarchy of matching conditions. At leading order, we have

1796: \begin{equation}

1797: \frac{d\tilde{w}_0}{d\bar{t}}(t)

1798: = \frac{1}{\epsilon}\, \frac{d\tilde{w}_0}{dt}(t) = \frac{\partial

1799:   \bar{c}_1}{\partial x}(-1,t) ,

1800:   \label{eq:wmatch}

1801: \end{equation}

1802: which, unlike Eq.~(\ref{eq:dq}), involves a {\it new time variable},

1803: \begin{equation}

1804: \bar{t} ={\epsilon} t = \frac{\epsilon\,\tau}{\tau_c} =

1805: \frac{\tau}{\tau_L} ,

1806: %%%% QQQ Martin, please make sure my changes are OK above

1807: % What did you do?

1808: \end{equation}

1809: scaled

1810: to the bulk diffusion time, $ \tau_L=L^2/D$. Physically, this matching

1811: condition simply expresses mass conservation: The (zeroth order)

1812: excess concentration in the diffuse layer varies in response to the

1813: (first order) diffusive flux from the bulk.

1814: 

1815: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:w}), the left-hand side is given by the leading-order

1816: inner approximation calculated above.  Substituting

1817: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cin0}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:w}), integrating, and using

1818: Eq.~(\ref{eq:K}) yields,

1819: \begin{eqnarray}

1820: \frac{d\tilde{w}_0}{dt}(t) &=& 2 \frac{d}{dt} \coth K(t) \nonumber \\

1821: &=& 2 \frac{d}{dt} \cosh \frac{\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)}{2}  \label{eq:dw0dt} \\

1822: &=& - \frac{\tilde{q}_0(t)}{2} \,  \frac{d\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)}{dt} \nonumber

1823: \end{eqnarray}

1824: where we have used the identity, $\cosh 2z = -\coth\log\tanh z$.

1825: Recall that the leading-order zeta potential, $\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)$, is

1826: related via Eq.~(\ref{eq:phid}) to the leading-order bulk current

1827: density, $\bar{j}_0(t)$, or interfacial voltage, $\tilde{\Psi}_0(t)$,

1828: given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:jexact}) and (\ref{eq:F}). Integrating

1829: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dw0dt}) and requiring $\tilde{w}_0=0$ for

1830: $\tilde{\zeta}_0=0$, we also obtain a simple expression for the excess

1831: concentration,

1832: \begin{equation}

1833: \tilde{w}_0 = 4\, \sinh^2 \frac{\tilde{\zeta}_0}{4} ,

1834: \label{eq:w0}

1835: \end{equation}

1836: which also holds for the static Gouy-Chapman solution.  Of course,

1837: this is another sign that (at leading order) a thin double layer stays

1838: in quasi-equilibrium, even while charging.

1839: 

1840: 

1841: \subsection{ The Sign of the Donnan Effect }

1842: 

1843: Before proceeding to calculate the bulk dynamics, we comment on the

1844: sign of the excess concentration in the diffuse part of the double

1845: layer, which corresponds to a {\it positive} adsorption of neutral

1846: salt. In contrast, it is commonly believed that double-layer salt

1847: adsorption is always negative, resulting in an excess neutral

1848: concentration in the nearby bulk electrolyte. Lyklema calls this the

1849: ``Donnan effect'' with reference to Donnan's general papers on

1850: membrane equilibria~\cite{donnan11a,donnan11b,donnan24} and describes

1851: how it is used to infer surface areas from experimental measurements

1852: of concentration variations upon charging (``salt

1853: sieving")~\cite{lyklema,lyklema1}. In the present case of

1854: diffuse-layer adsorption, the following argument is given: Since the

1855: equilibrium co-ion concentration in the double layer near a charged

1856: surface is reduced compared to the bulk, there must be an excess of

1857: co-ions, and hence an excess of neutral concentration (and

1858: counter-ions) in the nearby bulk.

1859: 

1860: How can this belief be reconciled with our analytical and numerical

1861: results, which clearly demonstrate the opposite effect in a model

1862: problem? The difference is that we consider a {\it finite} system with

1863: global ion conservation, while Lyklema considers an open system into

1864: which ions are apparently injected. We also explicitly calculate the

1865: time-dependent response to interfacial charging, while he describes the

1866: steady state after new ions somehow arrive ``from infinity''.

1867: 

1868: Our conclusion is therefore the opposite: Since the equilibrium

1869: counter-ion concentration is enhanced in the double layer, there must

1870: be a depletion of counter-ions, and hence a reduction in neutral

1871: concentration (and co-ions) in the nearby bulk. Gouy's nonlinear

1872: theory shows that at large voltages the excess of counter ions exceeds

1873: the reduction in co-ions in the diffuse layer, so this result is quite

1874: intuitive.

1875: 

1876: 

1877: In real systems, it may be that compact-layer effects, such as the

1878: specific adsorption of ions on the surface, can lead to overall

1879: negative adsorption by the double layer. According to the

1880: Nernst-Planck-Poisson equations, however, the average concentration of

1881: all ions (regardless of species) is always increased in the diffuse

1882: part of the double layer relative to the bulk in any finite system.

1883: The associated local depletion of neutral salt has important

1884: implications for time-dependent electrokinetic phenomena at

1885: polarizable surfaces (section ~\ref{sec:colloids}) since bulk

1886: concentration gradients alter electric fields and produce

1887: diffusio-osmotic slip.

1888: 

1889: 

1890: 

1891: \subsection{ Bulk Diffusion at Two Time Scales }

1892: 

1893: We now proceed to calculate how the bulk concentration is

1894: depleted in time and space during double-layer charging in our model

1895: problem.  The matching condition, Eq.~(\ref{eq:wmatch}), seems to contradict

1896: the analysis above, since it introduces a new time variable,

1897: $\bar{t}$. However, this is the same time scale for the first-order

1898: (diffusive) dynamics in the bulk,

1899: \begin{equation}

1900: \frac{\partial \bar{c}_1}{\partial \bar{t}}

1901: = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \,  \frac{\partial \bar{c}_1}{\partial t}

1902: = \frac{\partial^2 \bar{c}_1}{\partial x^2} .   \label{eq:c1eq}

1903: \end{equation}

1904: We must solve this equation starting from $\bar{c}_1(x,0)=0$ with a

1905: time-dependent prescribed flux at $x=-1$ given by

1906: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:wmatch}) and (\ref{eq:dw0dt}). We also enforce symmetry

1907: about the origin, Eq.~(\ref{eq:sym}). 

1908: 

1909: The Laplace transform of the solution is:

1910: \begin{eqnarray}

1911: \hat{\bar{c}}_1(x,s)

1912: &=& - \frac{\sqrt{s}\,

1913:     \cosh(x\sqrt{s})}{\sinh(\sqrt{s})}\, \int_0^\infty   

1914:     e^{-s\bar{t}} \tilde{w}_0(\bar{t}/\epsilon)

1915:     d\bar{t}   \nonumber \\

1916: &=& \int_0^\infty e^{-s\bar{t}} \bar{c}_1(x,\bar{t}) d\bar{t}   

1917:     \label{eq:c1lap} 

1918: \end{eqnarray}

1919: where $\tilde{w}_0(t)$ is determined by $\tilde{\zeta}_0(t)$ from

1920: Eq.~(\ref{eq:w0}). The prefactor,

1921: \begin{equation}

1922: \hat{G}(s) = \frac{\cosh(x\sqrt{s})}

1923: 	{\sqrt{s}\, \sinh(\sqrt{s})} ,  \label{eq:c1t}

1924: \end{equation}

1925: is the Laplace transform of $G(\bar{t})$, the Green function for

1926: the diffusion equation, Eq. ~(\ref{eq:c1eq}), for a sudden unit flux

1927: of ions at time $\bar{t} = 0^+$ injected at the boundary:

1928: \begin{equation}

1929: G(x,0)=0, \ \ \frac{\partial G}{\partial x}(-1,\bar{t}) =

1930: \delta^+(\bar{t}) .  \label{eq:c1bc1}

1931: \end{equation}

1932: The same Green function also arises in the equivalent problem of an

1933: initial unit source adjacent to a reflecting wall,

1934: \begin{equation}

1935: G(x,0) = \delta(x+1^+), \ \ \frac{\partial G}{\partial

1936: x}(-1,\bar{t}) = 0 . \label{eq:c1bc2}

1937: \end{equation}

1938: In this form, the Green function can be obtained by inspection,

1939: \begin{equation}

1940: G(x,\bar{t}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi

1941: \bar{t}}} \, \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty e^{-(x - 2m+1)^2/4\bar{t}} ,

1942: \label{eq:c1profile}

1943: \end{equation}

1944: using the method of images.

1945: 

1946: 

1947: Since $\hat{\bar{c}}_1(x,s)$ is expressed as a product of two

1948: Laplace transforms, Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1lap}), the inverse is equal to 

1949: the convolution of the two original functions:

1950: \begin{equation}

1951: \bar{c}_1(x,\bar{t}) = -\int_0^{\bar{t}} d\bar{t}^\prime \, 

1952: G(x,\bar{t}^\prime-\bar{t}) \, \frac{\partial \tilde{w}_0}{\partial \bar{t}}

1953: \left(\frac{\bar{t}^\prime}{\epsilon}\right). \label{eq:c1int1} 

1954: \end{equation}

1955: This form clearly demonstrates that the boundary forcing occurs over the

1956: fast, charging time, $t = \bar{t}/\epsilon$, while the response

1957: described by the Green-function kernel occurs over the slow, diffusion

1958: time, $\bar{t}$. The separation of time scales is apparent in

1959: the equivalent expression,

1960: \begin{equation}

1961: \bar{c}_1(x,t) = - \int_0^t dt^\prime

1962: G\left(x,\epsilon(t^\prime-t)\right)\,

1963: \tanh\left(\frac{\tilde{\zeta}_0(t^\prime)}{2}\right)\,

1964: \bar{j}_0(t^\prime) \label{eq:c1j}

1965: \end{equation}

1966: which can be derived from Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1int1}) using

1967: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dw0dt}). This form shows explicitly how solution for the

1968: current at leading order, Eq.~(\ref{eq:jexact}), fully determines the

1969: bulk concentration at first order.

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \begin{figure}

1973: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig8.eps}

1974: \caption{ Weakly nonlinear dynamics for $v=1$, $\epsilon=0.05$,

1975: $\delta=0.1$, showing the effect of bulk diffusion. The concentration

1976: from the full numerical solution is shown in the half cell (a) and in

1977: the diffuse layer (b) for $t=0.5$ (solid), $t=1$ (dot), $2$ (dash),

1978: $4$ (dot-dash), $8$ (dot-dot-dot-dash), and $20$ (long

1979: dash). \label{fig:weak} }

1980: \end{figure}

1981: 

1982: Before further analysis of the exact solution for $c_1(x,t)$, we

1983: describe its physical significance. The bulk concentration at

1984: first-order exhibits diffusive relaxation at two different time

1985: scales, $t=O(1)$ and $\bar{t}=O(1)$, or with units, $\tau =

1986: O(\lambda_DL/D)$ and $\tau = O(L^2/D)$, respectively.  For $t=O(1)$

1987: and $\bar{t} = O(\epsilon)$, the initial double-layer charging process

1988: proceeds without any significant changes in concentration at the bulk

1989: length scale, $x = O(1)$. During this phase, each diffuse-charge layer

1990: acquires an $O(\epsilon)$ amount of excess concentration, given by

1991: Eq.~(\ref{eq:w0v}).  This excess concentration has been acquired by a

1992: diffusive process, which at this time scale corresponds to a bulk

1993: diffusion layer of $O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ width near each electrode.

1994: This implies an $O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ depletion of the neutral salt

1995: concentration in the bulk diffusion layers. These scaling arguments

1996: are confirmed by Fig.~\ref{fig:compare}(c) for $v=1$ and

1997: $\epsilon=0.05$, where at time $t = 1$ (or $\bar{t} = \epsilon$) the

1998: diffusion layers are roughly of width $\sqrt{2\bar{t}} =

1999: \sqrt{2\epsilon} \approx 0.3$. The formation and spreading of the

2000: diffusion layers is also shown in more detail in Fig.~\ref{fig:weak}.

2001: 

2002: 

2003: \subsection{ Evolution of the Diffusion Layers }

2004: 

2005: In the previous section, we derived the time-dependent outer

2006: approximation, Eq.~(\ref{eq:cout}), to first order,

2007: \begin{equation}

2008: \bar{c}(x,t) \sim 1 + \epsilon \, \bar{c}_1(x,t),  \label{eq:cc1}

2009: \end{equation}

2010: which displays dynamics at both the RC time and the bulk diffusion

2011: time. The result, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c1profile})--(\ref{eq:c1j}), is fairly

2012: complicated, so in this section we try to gain some simple analytical

2013: insight. In the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, the initial charging

2014: process at the time scale $\bar{t} = O(\epsilon)$ is instantaneous,

2015: and we are left with only the slow relaxation of the bulk diffusion

2016: layers. Explicitly taking this limit in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1lap}) with

2017: $\bar{t} = \epsilon t$ fixed, 

2018: \begin{equation}

2019: %\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \hat{\bar{c}}_1(x,s) 

2020: %&=& -\tilde{w}_0(\infty) \hat{G}(s) \nonumber \\ 

2021: \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}

2022: \bar{c}_1(x,\bar{t}) = -\tilde{w}_0(\infty) G(x,\bar{t}) ,   \label{eq:c1approx}

2023: \end{equation}

2024: we see that the slow-scale evolution of the diffusion layers is 

2025: given by the Green function, $G(x,\bar{t})$, with a source of

2026: strength, $-\tilde{w}_0(\infty)$, equal to the leading-order total salt

2027: adsorption. According to Eqs.(\ref{eq:phid}) and (\ref{eq:w0}) with

2028: $\bar{j}_0(\infty)=0$, this is given by

2029: \begin{equation}

2030: \tilde{w}_0(\infty) = 4\, \sinh^2 \frac{f^{-1}(v)}{4}, 

2031: \label{eq:w0v}

2032: \end{equation}

2033: where

2034: \begin{equation}

2035: f(\zeta) = \zeta + 2\delta \sinh(\zeta/2) \label{eq:fzeta}

2036: \end{equation}

2037: which reduces to 

2038: \begin{equation}

2039: \tilde{w}_0(\infty) = 4\, \sinh^2 \frac{v}{4},  \label{eq:wtd0}

2040: \end{equation}

2041: in the absence of any compact layers ($\delta=0$).

2042: 

2043: 

2044: 

2045: \begin{figure}

2046: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig9.eps}

2047: \caption{ \label{fig:c1} Simple approximations of the bulk diffusion

2048: layers for weakly nonlinear charging dynamics with $v=1$,

2049: $\epsilon=0.05$, $\delta=0.1$. The full numerical solution (solid) is

2050: compared with the approximate first-order expansion at the diffusion

2051: time scale, given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c1approx}), (\ref{eq:c1profile}),

2052: and (\ref{eq:cc1}). Also, shown is the latter plus the zeroth-order

2053: inner approximation, Eq.~(\ref{eq:cin0}), for the diffuse layers

2054: (dashed). }

2055: \end{figure}

2056: 

2057: 

2058: This simple approximation describes two diffusion layers created at

2059: the electrodes slowly invading the entire cell. At first, they have

2060: simple Gaussian profiles,

2061: \begin{equation}

2062: \bar{c}(x,\bar{t}) \sim 1 - \frac{\epsilon

2063: \tilde{w}_0(\infty)}{\sqrt{\pi \bar{t}}} \left[ e^{-(x +

2064: 1)^2/4\bar{t}} + e^{-(x -1)^2/4\bar{t}} \right]  \label{eq:cinit}

2065: \end{equation}

2066: for $\bar{t} \ll 1$, which is qualitatively consistent with the

2067: numerical results in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare}(c). To attempt a

2068: quantitative comparison, we also need $t \gg 1$ to use

2069: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c1approx}) and (\ref{eq:c1profile}). As shown in

2070: Fig.~(\ref{fig:c1}), the approximation is reasonable for $t=3$ with an

2071: error of roughly $\epsilon^2 = 0.0025$. The two diffusion layers

2072: eventually collide, and the concentration slowly approaches a

2073: (reduced) constant value,

2074: \begin{equation}

2075: \bar{c}(x,\bar{t}) \sim 1 - \epsilon \tilde{w}_0(\infty)   \label{eq:cinf}

2076: \end{equation}

2077: for $\bar{t} \gg 1$, as expected from the steady-state excess

2078: concentration in the double layers. (This result may be checked by

2079: replacing the sum in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1profile}) with an integral in the

2080: limit $\bar{t} \rightarrow \infty$.)

2081: 

2082: 

2083: \subsection{ Bulk Concentration Polarization }

2084: 

2085: As mentioned above, the bulk charge density remains very small,

2086: $\bar{\rho} = O(\epsilon^3)$, even during double-layer relaxation, but

2087: changes in neutral bulk concentration affect the potential at first

2088: order. Substituting the outer expansions into Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) and

2089: collecting terms at $O(\epsilon)$, we have

2090: \begin{equation}

2091: 0 = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \bar{c}_0 

2092:   \frac{\partial\bar{\phi}_1}{\partial x} + \bar{c}_1 

2093:   \frac{\partial\bar{\phi}_0}{\partial x} \right].

2094: \end{equation}

2095: This is easily integrated using $\bar{c}_0 = 1$ to obtain the

2096: first-order contribution to the bulk electric field,

2097: \begin{equation}

2098: \frac{\partial\bar{\phi}_1}{\partial x} = \bar{j}_1(t) - \bar{j}_0(t)

2099: \, \bar{c}_1(x,t),

2100: \end{equation}

2101: where the second term describes concentration polarization, i.e. the

2102: departure from a harmonic potential, which would be predicted by Ohm's

2103: law.  The first term is a uniform bulk field (or current) determined

2104: by first-order perturbation in double-layer charge. This follows from

2105: the matching condition, Eq.~(\ref{eq:qmatch}), at first order:

2106: \begin{equation}

2107: \frac{d\tilde{q}_1}{dt} = \bar{j}_1(t).

2108: \end{equation}

2109: where $\tilde{q}_1(t)$ is obtained by solving the inner problem at

2110: first order.

2111: 

2112: 

2113: \subsection{ Perturbations in Double-layer Structure }

2114: 

2115: Unfortunately, the first-order inner problem is difficult to solve

2116: analytically because the perturbed concentration profiles are no

2117: longer in thermal equilibrium during the initial charging phase. To

2118: see this, note that the time derivatives in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cin}) and

2119: (\ref{eq:rhoin}) contribute nonzero (but known) terms at first order,

2120: \begin{eqnarray}

2121: \frac{\partial \tilde{c}_0}{\partial t} &=& 

2122: \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left( \frac{\partial \tilde{c}_1}{\partial y} +

2123: \tilde{\rho}_0 \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y} +

2124: \tilde{\rho}_1 \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial y}\right)

2125: \label{eq:c1in} \\

2126: \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}_0}{\partial t} &=& 

2127: \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left( \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}_1}{\partial y} +

2128: \tilde{c}_0 \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y} +

2129: \tilde{c}_1 \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial y}\right)

2130: \label{eq:rho1in} \\

2131:  -\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y^2} &= &\tilde{\rho}_1

2132: \label{eq:phi1in} 

2133: \end{eqnarray}

2134: although one still solves a system of linear ordinary differential

2135: equations in $y$ at each $t$, since $\tilde{c}_0(y,t)$,

2136: $\tilde{\rho}_0(y,t)$, and $\tilde{\phi}_0(y,t)$ are known.

2137: 

2138: The general problem seems daunting, but some progress can

2139: be made at the scale of bulk diffusion, $\bar{t} = O(1)$ or $t =

2140: O(\epsilon^{-1})$, where the leading-order concentration profiles

2141: remain in thermal equilibrium, without any explicit time

2142: dependence. This will give us some insight into secondary charge

2143: relaxation at the time scale of bulk diffusion. In this limit, the

2144: Equations~(\ref{eq:c1in}) and (\ref{eq:rho1in}) can be integrated to

2145: obtain: \begin{eqnarray} - \frac{\partial \tilde{c}_1}{\partial y}

2146: &\sim& \tilde{\rho}_0 (y,\infty)\frac{\partial

2147: \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y} + \tilde{\rho}_1 \frac{\partial

2148: \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial

2149:  y}(y,\infty) 

2150: \label{eq:c1inb} \\

2151: - \frac{\partial \tilde{\rho}_1}{\partial y} &\sim&

2152: \tilde{c}_0 (y,\infty)\frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y} +

2153: \tilde{c}_1 \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial

2154:  y}(y,\infty) 

2155: \label{eq:rho1inb} 

2156: \end{eqnarray}

2157: after applying the usual van Dyke matching conditions.

2158: Substituting from Poisson's equation, $\tilde{\rho}_n = -\partial^2

2159: \tilde{\phi}_n/\partial y^2$, at orders $n=0,1$ into

2160: Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1inb}), integrating, and applying matching again, we

2161: obtain:

2162: \begin{equation}

2163: \tilde{c}_1(y,\bar{t}) \sim \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial

2164:  y}(y,\infty) \,  \frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial

2165:  y}(y,\bar{t}) + \bar{c}_1(-1,\bar{t})

2166: \end{equation}

2167: for $\bar{t} > 0$ and $t = \bar{t}/\epsilon \gg 1$.  From the previous

2168: section, we also have the leading-order inner concentration,

2169: \begin{equation}

2170: \tilde{c}_0(y,\infty) = \bar{c}_0(-1,\bar{t}) + \frac{1}{2}

2171: \tilde{E}_0(y,\infty),

2172: \end{equation}

2173: where $\bar{c}_0(-1,\bar{t})=1$ is the leading-order outer

2174: concentration, and 

2175: \begin{equation}

2176: \tilde{E}_0(y,\infty) = -\frac{\partial \tilde{\phi}_0}{\partial

2177: y}(y,\infty) = 2 \sinh \frac{\tilde{\psi}_0(y,\infty)}{2},

2178: \end{equation}

2179: is the leading-order inner electric field in steady-state.  Finally,

2180: we substitute these expressions into Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1inb}) and use

2181: Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1in}) to obtain a master equation for the first-order

2182: inner electric field, $\tilde{E}_1(y,\bar{t})= -\frac{\partial

2183: \tilde{\phi}_1}{\partial y}(y,\bar{t})$, at the bulk-diffusion time

2184: scale:

2185: \begin{equation}

2186: \frac{\partial^2 \tilde{E}_1}{\partial y^2}= \left(1 + \frac{3}{2}

2187: \tilde{E}_0^2\right) \tilde{E}_1 +  \bar{c}_1 \tilde{E}_0

2188: \label{eq:E1master} .

2189: \end{equation}

2190: This linear equation with a non-constant coefficient must be solved

2191: subject to the boundary conditions, $\tilde{E}_1(\infty,\bar{t}) = 0$

2192: and $\tilde{E}_1(0,\bar{t}) = -\tilde{q}_1(\bar{t})$. The perturbation

2193: of the total charge, $\tilde{q}_1(\bar{t})$ is obtained by another

2194: integration of the field to get the first-order inner potential, while

2195: applying the Stern boundary condition.

2196: 

2197: For our purposes here, it suffices to point out that the spatial

2198: profile of the first-order inner electric field in

2199: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E1master}) varies with the outer concentration,

2200: $\bar{c}_1(-1,\bar{t})$, at the slow time scale of bulk

2201: diffusion. Notably, this can lead to a secondary relaxation of the

2202: total diffuse charge, in response to the evolution of the diffusion

2203: layers. We observe this slow relaxation phase in our numerical

2204: solutions of the full equations, especially at large voltages. In

2205: particular, it is presumably associated with the non-monotonic

2206: charging profile for $v = 4$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:q}(c). A detailed

2207: analysis of this interesting effect from the setup above would require

2208: solving the first-order inner problem numerically, so we leave it for

2209: future work.

2210: 

2211: 

2212: \section {Strongly Nonlinear Dynamics }

2213: \label{sec:strong}

2214: 

2215: \subsection{ Steady State and the Dukhin Number }

2216: 

2217: We stress again that the asymptotic expansions derived above are valid

2218: in the limit of thin double layers, $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, with the

2219: other two dimensionless parameters, $v$ (applied voltage) and $\delta$

2220: (relative compact-layer capacitance), held constant. For any fixed

2221: $\epsilon > 0$, there is no guarantee that the approximation remains

2222: accurate as the other parameters are varied. Having just calculated

2223: the bulk concentration to first order in the regular

2224: expansion, Eq.~(\ref{eq:cout}), we can now check {\it a posteriori}

2225: under what conditions it remains a good approximation.

2226: 

2227: A simple check involves the constant bulk concentration,

2228: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cinf}), after the charging process is completed.  The

2229: assumption that the first correction is much smaller than the leading

2230: term requires, $\alpha_s \equiv \epsilon \, \tilde{w}(\infty) \ll 1$.

2231: Linearizing Eq.~(\ref{eq:fzeta}) for $\delta \ll 1$, we can write this

2232: condition in a closed form:

2233: \begin{equation}

2234: 4 \, \epsilon \, \sinh^2 \left( \frac{v}{4(1+\delta)} \right) \ll 1

2235: \end{equation}

2236: Putting the units back, we have  

2237: \begin{equation}

2238: \alpha_s(\zeta_0) = \frac{4\lambda_D}{L} \, \sinh^2 \left( \frac{ze

2239: \zeta_0}{4 kT} \right) \ll 1 \label{eq:valid-steady}

2240: \end{equation}

2241: where $\zeta_0 \approx V/(1+\delta)$ is the steady-state zeta

2242: potential, long after the DC voltage is applied. 

2243: 

2244: The condition, $\alpha_s(\zeta_0) \ll 1$, for the validity of the {\it

2245: steady-state} asymptotic expansion is identical to that of small

2246: Dukhin number, $\Du(\zeta_0) \ll 1$, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Du}) in the

2247: limit of no electro-osmosis ($m=0$), which may seem surprising since

2248: there is no surface conduction in our one-dimensional model

2249: problem. (Hence, we use the symbol $\alpha_s$ rather than $\Du$.)  The

2250: reason is that in both cases --- Dukhin's problem of electrophoresis

2251: of highly charged particles in weak applied fields and ours of electrode

2252: screening in strong applied fields --- the double layer absorbs a significant

2253: amount of neutral salt from the bulk (reverse Donnan effect). 

2254: 

2255: Net charge adsorption relative to the point of zero charge is measured by the

2256: {\it total} zeta potential,

2257: \begin{equation}

2258: \zeta_{tot} = \zeta_{eq} + \zeta_{ind}

2259: \end{equation}

2260: where $\zeta_{eq}$ is the uniform equilibrium zeta potential

2261: (reflecting the initial surface charge) and $\zeta_{ind}$ is the

2262: non-uniform induced zeta potential (resulting from diffuse-charge

2263: dynamics). In Dukhin's problem, the former may be large,

2264: $\Du(\zeta_{eq}) > 1$, but the latter is always small, $\zeta_{ind}

2265: \ll kT/ze$, so that the charging dynamics is linearized (or

2266: ignored). In our model problem, the situation is reversed: We assume

2267: $\zeta_{eq}=0$ (for simplicity), but we allow for a large applied

2268: voltage, $\zeta_{ind} \approx v/(1+\delta) > kT/ze$, in which case the

2269: dynamics is nonlinear. In both cases, the steady state is well

2270: described by weakly nonlinear asymptotics as long as

2271: $\alpha_s(\zeta_{tot}) = \Du(\zeta_{tot}) \ll 1$. When this condition is

2272: violated, double-layer charging and surface conduction may cause

2273: significant changes in the steady-state bulk concentration.

2274: 

2275: 

2276: \subsection{ Breakdown of Weakly Nonlinear Asymptotics }

2277: 

2278: In general, weakly nonlinear {\it dynamics} breaks down at

2279: somewhat smaller voltages, where $\zeta_{tot} > kT/e$ but

2280: $\alpha_s(\zeta_{tot}) = \Du(\zeta_{tot}) \ll 1$, because neutral-salt

2281: adsorption causes a {\it temporary, local depletion} of bulk

2282: concentration exceeding that of the steady state, after diffusional

2283: relaxation. In our model problem, the maximum change in bulk

2284: concentration occurs just outside the diffuse layers at $x = \pm 1$,

2285: just after the initial charging process finishes at time scale, $t =

2286: 1$ or $\bar{t} = \epsilon$. From 

2287: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cinit}), we have the first two terms of the weakly

2288: nonlinear asymptotic expansion there:

2289: \begin{equation}

2290: \bar{c}(\pm 1,\epsilon) \sim 1 - \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{\pi}} \,

2291:   \tilde{w}_0(\infty).

2292: \end{equation}

2293: At that time, the newly created diffusion layers have spread to

2294: $O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ width, so the concentration is depleted locally

2295: by $O(\epsilon/\sqrt{\epsilon})=O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$, which is much

2296: more than the uniform $O(\epsilon)$ depletion remaining after bulk

2297: diffusion.

2298:  

2299: Therefore, in order for the time-dependent correction term to be

2300: uniformly smaller than the leading term, we need

2301: \begin{equation}

2302: \alpha_d \equiv  \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{\pi}} \, \tilde{w}_0(\infty) =

2303: \frac{\alpha_s}{\sqrt{\pi \epsilon}} \ll 1 .

2304: \end{equation}

2305: The relevant dimensionless parameter,  

2306: \begin{equation}

2307: \alpha_d(\zeta_{tot}) = 4 \sqrt{\frac{\lambda_D}{\pi L}} \, \sinh^2 \left( \frac{ze

2308: \zeta_{tot}}{4 kT} \right)  

2309: \end{equation}

2310: is larger than $\alpha_s(\zeta_{tot})$ (and the Dukhin number) by a factor

2311: of $\sqrt{L/\pi\lambda_D}$ in the limit of thin double layers.  For

2312: weakly nonlinear dynamics to hold, the applied voltage

2313: cannot greatly exceed the thermal voltage,

2314: \begin{equation}

2315: \zeta_{tot} \approx \frac{V}{1+\delta} < \frac{kT}{ze} \, \log \frac{

2316:   L}{\lambda_D} , \label{eq:valid-dyn}

2317: \end{equation}

2318: even for very thin double layers, $\lambda_D \ll L$, due to the

2319: logarithm.  In comparison, the applied voltage can be twice as large

2320: before the steady-state bulk concentration is significantly affected

2321: (and surface conduction becomes important in higher dimensions).

2322: This

2323: could have interesting consequences for induced-charge

2324: electrokinetic phenomena~\cite{bazant03} at moderate applied voltages

2325: where $\alpha_d > 1$ but $\alpha_s = \Du < 1$.

2326: 

2327: \subsection{ Strongly Nonlinear Asymptotics }

2328: 

2329: When condition (\ref{eq:valid-dyn}) is violated, electrochemical

2330: relaxation becomes much more complicated because double-layer charging

2331: is coupled to bulk diffusion. As long as $\alpha_d<1$, 

2332: however, the

2333: bulk remains quasi-neutral at all times. This regime of strongly

2334: nonlinear dynamics is demonstrated by the numerical solution in

2335: Fig.~\ref{fig:strong}, for $v = 4$, $\epsilon=0.05$, and $\delta=0.1$,

2336: in which case $\alpha_d = 0.545$.

2337: %

2338: % gnuplot> print 4*sqrt(0.05/pi)*(sinh(1.0/1.1)**2)

2339: % 0.545371019206225

2340: %

2341: In spite of the substantial $O(1)$

2342: amount of charge transfered from one diffuse layer to the other, each

2343: retains almost exactly the same $O(\epsilon)$ width as at lower 

2344: voltages, and bulk electro-neutrality remains an excellent

2345: approximation for all times. The initial charging process up

2346: to $t \approx 1$ creates a diffusion layer of neutral salt which

2347: relaxes into the bulk at the scale $\bar{t} \approx 1$ (or $t =

2348: \bar{t}/\epsilon \approx 20$).

2349: 

2350: \begin{figure*}

2351: \includegraphics[width=6in]{fig10.eps}

2352: \caption{ Strongly nonlinear charging dynamics for $v=4$ with

2353: $\epsilon=0.05$ and $\delta=0.1$. The potential (a), charge density

2354: (b), and concentration are shown in the half cell (top) and in the

2355: diffuse layer (bottom) for $t=0.5$ (solid), $1$ (dot), $2$ (dash), $4$

2356: (dot-dash), $8$ (dot-dot-dot-dash), and $20$ (long

2357: dash). \label{fig:strong} }

2358: \end{figure*}

2359: 

2360: In the strongly nonlinear regime, if $\alpha_s$ is not too small,

2361: double-layer charging is slowed down so much by nonlinearity that

2362: it continues to occur as the bulk diffusion layers evolve. One way to

2363: see this is that the effective RC time for the late stages of

2364: charging in Eq.(\ref{eq:jlate}) is

2365: \begin{equation}

2366: t_c(v) = C_i(v) \approx \cosh \frac{v}{2} \approx 2 \sinh^2 \frac{v}{4}

2367: \approx \frac{\alpha_s}{2\epsilon}  

2368: \end{equation}

2369: where we use the leading-order approximation of the differential

2370: capacitance, Eq. (\ref{eq:Ca}), for $\delta \ll 1$. In units of the

2371: bulk diffusion time, the nonlinear relaxation time is $\bar{t}_c =

2372: \epsilon t_c = \alpha_s/2$. 

2373: 

2374: To make analytical progress, one would consider the joint limits

2375: \begin{equation}

2376: \epsilon \rightarrow 0 \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ v \rightarrow \infty \ \

2377: \mbox{with } \ \ \alpha_d(v)>0 \mbox{ fixed}

2378: \end{equation}

2379: and expect the approximations to remain acceptable at somewhat

2380: larger voltages, as long $\alpha_s(v) < 1$.  Such analysis is beyond

2381: the scope of this article, but at least we indicate how the leading

2382: order approximation would be calculated. (Going beyond leading order

2383: seems highly nontrivial.) 

2384: 

2385: At leading order in the bulk, we have the

2386: usual equations for a neutral binary electrolyte (with equal ionic diffusivites),

2387: \begin{equation}

2388: \frac{\partial \bar{c}_0}{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial^2

2389: \bar{c}_0}{\partial x^2} \ \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \ \frac{\partial

2390: }{\partial x} \left(\bar{c}_0 \, \frac{\partial

2391: \bar{\phi}_0}{\partial x}\right) = 0

2392: \end{equation}

2393: with $\bar{\rho} = O(\epsilon^2)$. Integrating the second equation, we

2394: obtain a constant, uniform current density, $\bar{j}_0(t)$,  as before,

2395: but the electric field is modified by concentration polarization,

2396: \begin{equation}

2397: \frac{\partial \bar{\phi}_0}{\partial x} =

2398: \frac{\bar{j}_0(t)}{\bar{c}_0(x,\bar{t})}.

2399: \end{equation}

2400: The effective boundary conditions come from asymptotic matching with

2401: the diffuse layers as before, 

2402: \begin{equation}

2403: \epsilon \, \frac{d\tilde{q}_0}{d\bar{t}} = \bar{j}_0(t) \ \ \ \mbox{and

2404: } \ \ \ \epsilon \, \frac{d\tilde{w}_0}{d\bar{t}} =  \frac{\partial

2405: \bar{c}_0}{\partial x}(-1,\bar{t})

2406: \end{equation}

2407: only now the diffusive flux entering the diffuse layers (second equation)

2408: appears at leading order.  The ionic concentrations retain 

2409: Gouy-Chapman equilibrium profiles modified

2410: quasi-statically by the evolving nearby bulk concentration:

2411: \begin{eqnarray}

2412: \tilde{q}_0(\bar{t}) &=& - 2 \sqrt{\bar{c}_0(-1,\bar{t})}

2413: \sinh\left(\frac{\tilde{\zeta}_0(\bar{t})}{2}\right)   \\

2414: \tilde{w}_0(\bar{t}) &=& 4 \sqrt{\bar{c}_0(-1,\bar{t})}

2415: \sinh^2\left(\frac{\tilde{\zeta}_0(\bar{t})}{4}\right)  

2416: \end{eqnarray}

2417: where

2418: \begin{equation} 

2419: \tilde{\zeta}_0(\bar{t}) - \tilde{q}_0(\bar{t})\,  \delta =

2420: \tilde{\Psi}_0(\bar{t})  = - v -

2421: \bar{\psi}_0(-1,\bar{t}) .

2422: \end{equation}

2423: It seems exact solutions are not possible in terms of elementary

2424: functions.

2425: The equations are ``stiff'', since they involve a short time

2426: scale, $\bar{t} = \epsilon$, for the initial phases of charging, but

2427: at least the spatial boundary layers have been ``integrated out'',

2428: which is convenient for numerical solutions.

2429: 

2430: \subsection{ Space Charge at Very Large Voltages }

2431: 

2432: We close this section by noting some intriguing, new possibilities, 

2433: further into the strongly nonlinear regime.  At large voltages, such

2434: that $\alpha_d > 1$, it seems a {\it transient space charge layer}

2435: should form since the bulk concentration would be depleted almost

2436: completely near the diffuse layers by the initial charging process.

2437: In steady-state problems of Faradaic conduction, it is well known that

2438: double-layer structure is altered from its Gouy-Chapman equilibrium

2439: profile at a limiting current~\cite{smyrl67} and may turn into an

2440: extended space charge layer above a limiting

2441: current~\cite{rubinstein79}, but here we see that similar effects may

2442: also occur temporarily with large time-dependent voltages, in the

2443: absence of any Faradaic processes (at blocking electrodes).  At still

2444: larger voltages, such that $\alpha_s > 1$, double layer charging

2445: consumes most of the bulk concentration, presumably leaving the entire

2446: bulk region in a state of ``space charge''.  

2447: 

2448: Such situations may seem quite exotic in macroscopic systems, where

2449: $\epsilon = \lambda_D/L$ is extremely small, but in microsystems

2450: perhaps they could occur. The mathematical model neglects bulk

2451: reactions (e.g. leading to hydrogen bubble formation), nonlinear

2452: dielectric properties, electro-convection, or other effects which may

2453: hinder the formation of space charge in real systems. Nevertheless,

2454: the rich nonlinear behavior of the model merits further mathematical

2455: study, as a challenging problem in time-dependent boundary-layer

2456: theory.

2457: 

2458: 

2459: 

2460: \section{ Beyond the Model Problem }

2461: \label{sec:concl}

2462: 

2463: We conclude by discussing more general situations, which contain some

2464: new physics, absent in our simple model problem.  For thin double layers,

2465: the same methods of asymptotic analysis could be applied to derive

2466: effective equations in which the double layers are incorporated into

2467: boundary conditions, better suited for analytical or numerical

2468: work. Here, we simply sketch the results and suggest some other model

2469: problems for further study. 

2470: 

2471: \subsection{ Two or More Dimensions }

2472:  

2473: In the weakly nonlinear regime, where $\alpha_d < 1$ for all times

2474: over all double layers, our analysis  extends trivially to higher

2475: dimensions, as long as the surface curvature does not introduce another

2476: length scale much

2477: smaller than $L$. In that case, the double layers are

2478: locally ``flat'', and the boundary-layer calculations remain

2479: unchanged. Following the same procedure, we find that the bulk concentration is

2480: uniform at leading order, $\bar{c}_0 = 1$, and the bulk potential,

2481: $\bar{\phi}(\rb,t)$, is a harmonic function,

2482: \begin{equation}

2483: \nabla^2 \bar{\phi}_0 = 0 ,  \label{eq:laplace}

2484: \end{equation}

2485: subject to a (dimensionless)  RC boundary condition at each

2486: electrode surface,

2487: \begin{equation}

2488: \frac{\partial \tilde{q}_0}{\partial t} = \tilde{C}(\bar{\phi}_0 -

2489: \phi_e) \, \frac{\partial (\bar{\phi}_0-\phi_e)}{\partial t} =

2490: \nb\cdot\del \bar{\phi}_0 ,   \label{eq:RCBC}

2491: \end{equation}

2492: where $\nb$ is the unit normal pointing into the electrolyte and  

2493: $\phi_e(\rb,t)$ is the local electrode potential relative to the

2494: solution. The latter is equal to the local applied voltage plus the

2495: equilibrium zeta potential:

2496: \begin{equation}

2497: \phi_e(\rb,t) = V(\rb,t) + \zeta_{eq}(\rb)

2498: \end{equation}

2499: which accounts for any pre-existing double-layer charge (neglected in

2500: our calculations above).  A Neumann boundary condition,

2501: $\nb\cdot\del\bar{\phi}_0$, is imposed at any inert, non-polarizable

2502: %%%% QQQ Missing right hand side in the above boundary condition????

2503: % NO. The prior eq is the boundary condition (it is an ODE).

2504: surface, such as a channel side wall. 

2505: 

2506: Another complication in two or more dimensions is the possibility of

2507: electro-osmotic flow. The fluid velocity in the bulk usually satisfies

2508: the Stokes equations, which may be unsteady for high-frequency

2509: forcing. In the weakly nonlinear regime, the classical

2510: Helmholtz-Smoluchowski formula gives the fluid slip in terms of the

2511: local zeta potential and tangential bulk electric

2512: field~\cite{hunter,russel,lyklema}.

2513: 

2514: Equations ~(\ref{eq:laplace}) and (\ref{eq:RCBC}) model the

2515: electrolyte as a bulk Ohmic resistor with a capacitor skin at

2516: electrode interfaces.  The linearized version of these equations (with

2517: $\tilde{C}$ = constant) has been studied extensively, e.g.\ in the

2518: context of metallic colloids~\cite{murtsovkin96,simonov77}, AC

2519: electro-osmosis~\cite{ramos99,green00a,gonzalez00}, AC

2520: pumping~\cite{ajdari00}, and other phenomena of induced-charge

2521: electro-osmosis~\cite{bazant03,squires03}. The nonlinear version,

2522: however, has apparently not been analyzed, even though it may have

2523: relevance for experiments, in which the condition, $v \ll 1$ ($V \ll

2524: kT/ze$), is routinely violated.

2525: 

2526: More significant modifications arise at leading order in the strongly

2527: nonlinear regime (or at higher order in the weakly nonlinear regime). 

2528: Ohm's law breaks down due to

2529: concentration gradients, as the double layers absorb a significant

2530: amount of neutral salt from the bulk. In two or more dimensions, the

2531: dimensionless leading-order equations for $\bar{c}_0(\rb,t)$ and

2532: $\bar{\phi}_0(\rb,t)$ in section~\ref{sec:strong} take the form, 

2533: \begin{equation}

2534: \frac{\partial \bar{c}_0}{\partial \bar{t}} = \nabla^2\bar{c}_0,

2535: \ \ \ \del\cdot(\bar{c}_0\del\bar{\phi}) = 0 ,

2536: \end{equation}

2537: where we scale time to the bulk diffusion time. This assumes $\alpha_d

2538: < 1$ so that no transient space charge layers form. 

2539: 

2540: The effective boundary

2541: conditions still involve the small parameter, $\epsilon$, as in one dimension, since

2542: the natural scale is the RC charging time, but there are some new

2543: terms in higher dimensions:

2544: \begin{eqnarray}

2545: \epsilon\, \frac{\partial \tilde{q}_0}{\partial \bar{t}} & = & 

2546: \nb\cdot(\bar{c}_0 \del \bar{\phi}_0) -   

2547: \Du \, \del_s \cdot \tilde{J}_s   \label{eq:Js} \\

2548: \epsilon\, \frac{\partial \tilde{w}_0}{\partial \bar{t}} & = & 

2549: \nb\cdot \del \bar{c}_0 -   

2550: \Du \, \del_s \cdot (\tilde{D}_s \del_s \tilde{w}_0)  \label{eq:Ds}

2551: \end{eqnarray}

2552: The last term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Js}) is the surface divergence of the

2553: (leading-order) dimensionless 

2554: tangential current, $\tilde{J}_s$, in the diffuse layer; the size of this term compared

2555: to the normal current is governed by a Dukhin number, based on the

2556: largest expected total zeta potential. Similarly, the last term in

2557: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ds}) is the surface divergence of the tangential diffusive

2558: flux in the diffuse layer, where $\tilde{D}_s$ is a dimensionless surface

2559: diffusivity; again, this term is of order $\Du$ smaller than the

2560: normal diffusive flux.  

2561: 

2562: Formulae for $\tilde{J}_s$ and $\tilde{D}_s$ can be derived

2563: systematically using the matched asymptotic expansions, which is

2564: beyond the scope of this paper. The classical results of

2565: Bikerman~\cite{bikerman33,bikerman35} and Deryagin and

2566: Dukhin~\cite{deryagin69} are available for the case of weak applied

2567: voltages ($\zeta_{ind}\ll kT/e$) and large equilibrium surface charges

2568: ($\zeta_{eq} > kT/e$, $\Du(\zeta_{eq})\approx 1$), and many Russian

2569: authors have studied electrokinetic phenomena in this

2570: regime~\cite{dukhin80,dukhin93}.  The case of strongly nonlinear

2571: dynamics ($\zeta_{ind} > kT/e$,  $\alpha_d(\zeta_{ind}) \approx 1$),

2572: however, should be revisited in more detail to see if any changes

2573: arise for strong, time-dependent applied voltages. We suggest as a

2574: basic open question analyzing the electrochemical response of a metal

2575: cylinder or sphere in a strong, suddenly applied, uniform background

2576: DC field.

2577: 

2578: Another interesting issue is the stability of our one-dimensional

2579: solution. One should consider small space-dependent perturbations of

2580: the solution at various large voltages, in both the weakly nonlinear

2581: and strongly nonlinear regimes. The general transient analysis in two

2582: or more dimensions with the same equations and boundary conditions

2583: presents an interesting challenge.

2584: 

2585: 

2586: \subsection{ General Electrolytes and Faradaic Reactions }

2587: 

2588: Even in one dimension, it would be interesting to extend our analysis

2589: to more general situations involving asymmetric or multicomponent

2590: electrolytes, which undergo Faradaic processes at electrode surfaces. 

2591: Restoring dimensions, the bulk electrolyte is described by the $N$ ionic

2592: concentrations, $C_i$, $i=1,2,\ldots,N$, satisfying mass conservation,

2593: \begin{equation}

2594: \frac{\partial C_i}{\partial \tau} = - \del\cdot\Fb_i

2595: \end{equation}

2596: where $\Fb_i$ is the flux density due to diffusion and

2597: electromigration,

2598: \begin{equation}

2599: \Fb_i = - D_i \del C_i - \mu_i z_i e C_i \del \Phi  

2600: \end{equation}

2601:  as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eqdim}). For thin double layers, at leading order 

2602: the bulk remains neutral (as long as $\alpha_d < 1$ to avoid space 

2603: charge formation), so the potential is determined implicitly by the condition of

2604: electroneutrality, 

2605: \begin{equation}

2606: \rho_e = \sum_{i=1}^N z_i e C_i = 0 .

2607: \end{equation}

2608: These are the standard equations of bulk

2609: electrochemistry~\cite{newman}, but interesting physical effects are

2610: contained in the effective boundary conditions. 

2611: 

2612: Generalizing the total surface charge density $q$ and excess surface

2613: concentration $w$, we define $\Gamma_i$ to be the surface

2614: concentration of species $i$ absorbed in the diffuse layer. To be precise, it

2615: is the integral of the leading-order excess concentration relative to

2616: the bulk over the inner coordinate, as in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qt}) and

2617: (\ref{eq:w}). For example, $q = ze(\Gamma_+ - \Gamma_-)/2$ and $w = (\Gamma_++

2618: \Gamma_-)/2$ for a symmetric binary electrolyte. 

2619: 

2620: Following the procedure above, the boundary

2621: conditions on the leading-order bulk approximation are of the form:

2622: \begin{equation}

2623: -\frac{\partial \Gamma_i}{\partial \tau} = \nb\cdot \Fb_i +

2624: \del_s\cdot\Fb_{si} + R_i

2625: \end{equation}

2626: where $\Fb_{si}(C_i,\Phi)$ is the surface flux density of species $i$ in the

2627: double layer~\cite{deryagin69} and $R_i(\{C_i\},\Phi)$ is the reaction-rate density

2628: for any Faradaic processes consuming (or producing) species $i$ at the

2629: surface. The usual assumption for $R_i$ involves Arrhenius kinetics,

2630: as in the Butler-Volmer equation, but the Frumkin correction for

2631: concentration variations across the diffuse layer must be taken into

2632: account~\cite{newman,bard}. 

2633: 

2634: The general system of nonlinear equations is challenging to solve, even

2635: numerically, due to multiple length and time scales. Boundary-layer

2636: theory provides only a partial simplification by integrating out the

2637: smallest length scale. As described in

2638: section~\ref{sec:history}, various special cases of the effective

2639: equations have been considered in the literature,

2640: but much remains to be done, especially for strongly nonlinear

2641: dynamics in large applied voltages. In micro-electrochemical or

2642: biological systems, this regime is easily reached, so it merits

2643: additional mathematical study and comparison with experimental data,

2644: in part to test the applicability of the Nernst-Planck equations in

2645: micro-systems. Another interesting aspect 

2646: is the coupling of electrochemical dynamics to fluid flow, which is

2647: finding new applications in microfluidic devices.

2648: 

2649: \acknowledgments

2650: 

2651: This work was supported in part by the MRSEC Program  of the National

2652: Science Foundation under award number DMR 02-13282 (MZB), by ESPCI

2653: through the Paris Sciences Chair (MZB), and by an ACI from the

2654: Minist\`ere de la Recherche (AA). We are grateful to K. Chu and the

2655: MIT librarians for help in obtaining articles from the ``ancient''

2656: and Russian literatures.

2657: 

2658: %\references

2659: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2660: 

2661: \include{art-bib}

2662: 

2663: \end{thebibliography}

2664: \end{document}

2665: