1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3:
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
8: \usepackage{color}
9:
10: %\usepackage{doublespace}
11:
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
14: \renewcommand{\vr}{\mathbf{r}}
15: \newcommand{\vu}{\mathbf{u}}
16: \newcommand{\vro}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}
17: \newcommand{\vX}{\mathbf{X}}
18: \newcommand{\vze}{\mathbf{0}}
19: \newcommand{\vj}{\mathbf{j}}
20: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
21: \newcommand{\bs}{\bigskip}
22: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}
23:
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28:
29: \title{Kinetics of diffusion-limited catalytically-activated reactions:
30: An extension of the Wilemski-Fixman approach}
31:
32:
33: \author{O. B\'enichou}
34: \email{benichou@lptl.jussieu.fr} \affiliation{Laboratoire de
35: Physique Th\'eorique de la Mati\`ere Condens\'ee, 4 place Jussieu,
36: 75252 Paris Cedex 05}
37: \author{M. Coppey}
38: \email{coppey@lptl.jussieu.fr} \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique
39: Th\'eorique de la Mati\`ere Condens\'ee, 4 place Jussieu, 75252
40: Paris Cedex 05}
41: \author{M. Moreau}
42: \email{moreau@lptl.jussieu.fr} \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique
43: Th\'eorique de la Mati\`ere Condens\'ee, 4 place Jussieu, 75252
44: Paris Cedex 05}
45: \author{G. Oshanin}
46: \email{oshanin@lptl.jussieu.fr} \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique
47: Th\'eorique de la Mati\`ere Condens\'ee, 4 place
48: Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05}
49: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Metallforschung,
50: Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany} \affiliation{Institut
51: f\"ur Theoretische und Angewandte Physik,University of Stuttgart,
52: Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany}
53:
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We study kinetics of diffusion-limited catalytically-activated $A +
57: B \to B$ reactions taking place in three dimensional systems, in
58: which an annihilation of diffusive $A$ particles by diffusive traps
59: $B$ may happen only if the encounter of an $A$ with any of the $B$s
60: happens within a special catalytic subvolumen, these subvolumens
61: being immobile and uniformly distributed within the reaction bath.
62: Suitably extending the classical approach of Wilemski and Fixman (G. Wilemski and M. Fixman, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{58}:4009, 1973) to
63: such three-molecular diffusion-limited reactions, we calculate
64: analytically an effective reaction constant and show that it
65: comprises several terms associated with the residence and joint
66: residence times of Brownian paths in finite domains. The effective
67: reaction constant exhibits a non-trivial dependence on the reaction
68: radii, the mean density of catalytic subvolumens and particles'
69: diffusion coefficients. Finally, we discuss the fluctuation-induced
70: kinetic behavior in such systems.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \pacs{05.40.-a, 02.50Ey, 82.20.-w}
74: \maketitle
75:
76:
77: \section{Introduction}
78:
79: Catalytically-activated reactions involving diffusive species
80: underly many different processes in physics, chemistry and biology
81: \cite{bond,rice,moreau95,oshanin98,tox}. In a general notation, such
82: reactions can be written as
83: \begin{equation}
84: \label{rea} A+B+C \xrightarrow[]{k} P+C,
85: \end{equation}
86: where $A$ and $B$ designate two different types of mobile reactive
87: species, $C$ denotes a catalytic subvolumen, while $P$ stands for
88: the reaction product. Catalytic subvolumens $C$ may form some
89: patterns, be uniformly or regularly spread along a given structure,
90: (e.g., a polymer or polymers in solution), scattered uniformly
91: within or on the boundary (surface) of the reaction bath.
92:
93: The reaction scheme in Eq.(\ref{rea}) signifies that the bimolecular
94: reaction between the $A$ and $B$ molecules may take place, at some
95: finite elementary reaction rate $k$, if and only if a diffusive
96: encounter of an
97: $A$ and a $B$ happens within any catalytic subvolumen $C$. In some cases, the $B$ particles may be unaltered by the reaction or
98: their concentration may substantially exceed that of the $A$ species, in
99: which situation the reaction in Eq.(\ref{rea}) can be viewed as \textit{bi-catalytic}:
100: that is, one deals with a simplified reaction scheme $A\to
101: P$ which requires the presence of two different catalytic
102: subvolumens - $B$ and $C$.
103: This is most often the case in biology, as exemplified, for
104: instance,
105: by the transcription of genes induced by the simultaneous presence of
106: several transcription factors on the promoter sequence \cite{biotf}.
107:
108:
109: Most of analytical descriptions of the catalytically-activated
110: reactions have focussed so far on the particular question how
111: reactions are promoted by specific catalytic subvolumens, which was
112: believed to be the most crucial aspect of the problem \cite{feib}. Within this
113: line of thought, the kinetic behavior has been determined using
114: standard formal-kinetic approaches \cite{bond,rice}. On the other
115: hand, a few available analytical studies of the
116: catalytically-activated reactions limited both by diffusion of
117: species and by the condition of the simultaneous encounters within
118: the catalytic subvolumens have revealed a non-trivial kinetic
119: behavior in low dimensional systems, and showed that although in
120: three dimensions kinetics follows standard temporal behavior, the
121: effective reaction rates are strongly dependent on particles'
122: diffusion coefficients, subvolumens' radii and their concentration
123: \cite{moreau95,oshanin98,tox}. These findings are, of course, in an
124: apparent contradiction with the predictions of the formal-kinetic
125: approach.
126:
127: As a matter of fact, it has been already realized that for reactions
128: taking place in non-catalytic systems, in many instances, the
129: kinetic behavior can not be adequately described in terms of the
130: formal-kinetics approach. Indeed, it has been known for a long time
131: that diffusion of reactive species limits the reactive process and
132: leads to unusual kinetics in low dimensional systems (see, e.g.,
133: Ref.\cite{klafter} and references therein). Moreover, it has been
134: discovered that in many reactive
135: systems spatial fluctuations in particles concentrations dominate the
136: long-time evolution and entail anomalous, fluctuation-induced
137: behavior. In particular,
138: a pronounced deviation from the
139: conventional descriptions \cite{rice} has been predicted for the
140: irreversible, diffusion-controlled recombination reaction $A + B \to
141: 0$ in case when initially the particles of the $A$ and $B$ species
142: are all distributed at random, independently of each other and with
143: strictly equal mean densities $n_A(0) = n_B(0) = n_0$. It has been
144: first shown \cite{ov} that here at long times the mean particle
145: densities follow
146: \begin{equation}
147: \label{AB} n(t) \sim n^{1/2}_0 (D t)^{-d/4},
148: \end{equation}
149: where $d$ is the space dimensionality and $D$ - the sum of
150: particles' diffusion coefficients, $D = D_A + D_B$. This law, which
151: was rigorously proven in Refs.\cite{burl,leb}, should be contrasted
152: to the conventionally expected Smoluchowski-type form $n(t) \sim
153: 1/\phi_R^{(d)}(t)$ \cite{rice}, where, as $t \to \infty$,
154: \begin{equation}
155: \label{Smol} \phi_R^{(d)}(t) = \int_0^t d\tau K_S(\tau) \sim
156: \displaystyle \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
157: \displaystyle 4 \sqrt{D t/\pi}, \;\;\; \mbox{d = 1}, \nonumber\\
158: \displaystyle \frac{4 \pi D t}{\ln(4 D t/R^2)}, \;\;\; \mbox{d = 2}, \nonumber\\
159: \displaystyle 4 \pi D R t, \;\;\; (k = \infty) \;\;\; \mbox{d = 3},
160: \end{array}
161: \right.
162: \end{equation}
163: $K_S(\tau)$ being the $d$-dimensional Smoluchowski-type constant,
164: defined as the flux of diffusive particles through the surface of an
165: immobile sphere of radius $R$ - the reaction radius. Note that both
166: decay laws contradict to the text-book formal-kinetic description based on the
167: "law of mass
168: action", which predicts that regardless of the spatial
169: dimensionality
170: $n(t)$ decays as $n(t) \sim 1/t$ \cite{rice}.
171:
172: Therefore, according
173: to the Smoluchowski approach, in diffusion-controlled recombination reaction $A + B \to
174: 0$ diffusion slows down the decay in low
175: dimensional systems and entails the renormalization of the reaction
176: rates in three-dimensions. On the other hand, in the particular case
177: when initially the particles of the $A$ and $B$ species
178: are all distributed at random, independently of each other and with
179: strictly equal mean densities $n_A(0) = n_B(0) = n_0$, fluctuations
180: in
181: spatial distributions of the reactive species appear as the most important rate
182: controlling factor in spatial dimension $d \leq 4$ and dominate the
183: long-time kinetics.
184:
185: For trapping reactions $A + B \to B$ in completely catalytic systems
186: two opposite limiting situations were most thoroughly studied.
187: Namely, the case
188: when the A particles diffuse while the traps $B$ are static, and the
189: situation in which the $A$ particles are immobile while $B$s diffuse
190: - the so-called target annihilation problem (TAP). The case of
191: static traps has attracted most of interest prompted by, in part,
192: an early
193: observation \cite{bal} that the long-time survival probability
194: $P_A(t)$ of $A$ particles diffusing in the presence of randomly
195: placed (with mean density $[B]$) traps exhibits highly non-trivial,
196: fluctuation-induced behavior of the form
197: \begin{equation}
198: \label{traps} \ln P_A(t) \sim - [B]^{2/(d + 2)} (D_A t)^{d/(d+2)},
199: \;\;\; t \to \infty,
200: \end{equation}
201: which stems from the randomness of $B$ distribution in space and
202: namely, from the presence of large spatial regions devoid of traps
203: where the $A$ particles survive anomalously long times. This
204: fluctuation-induced decay law is intrinsically relevant to the
205: so-called Lifschitz singularities near the edge of the band in the
206: density of states of a particle in quantum Lorentz gas, as first
207: noticed in \cite{bal}. Later works (see, e.g., Refs.\cite{burl,don,bal,3,sosiska,pastur,leb,gp,kh,weiss,fix,deutch,mi})
208: have also pointed out relevance of the issue to the problems of
209: percolation, self-avoiding random walks or self-attracting polymers,
210: as well as anomalous behavior of the ground-state energy of the
211: Witten's toy Hamiltonian of supersymmetric quantum mechanics
212: \cite{sosiska}.
213: %Different analytical techniques have been elaborated
214: %to recover and eventually prove such a behavior, including an
215: %extension of the "optimal fluctuation" method \cite{bal}, Green
216: %functions approach \cite{burl}, field-theoretic treatments \cite{3},
217: %different methods of bounds \cite{don,pastur,leb,gp,kh}, as well as
218: %a variety of mean-field-type descriptions (see, e.g.,
219: %Refs.\cite{weiss,fix,deutch}). In addition, the question of how the
220: %decay law in Eq.(\ref{traps}) would be modified in case of
221: %correlated placement of traps (all traps are attached, e.g., to long
222: %polymer chains in solution \cite{mi}) has been addressed.
223:
224: Survival probability $P_{target}(t)$ of an immobile target $A$ of
225: radius $R$ in presence of point-like diffusive traps $B$ - the
226: target annihilation problem (TAP), allows for an exact
227: solution in any spatial dimension
228: \cite{klafter,tach,blu,red2,szabo,burl}
229: \begin{equation}
230: \label{k} P_{target}(t) = \exp\Big( - [B] \phi_R^{(d)}(t)\Big),
231: \end{equation}
232: where $\phi_R^{(d)}(t)$ has been defined in Eq.(\ref{Smol}) in which
233: one has to set $D_A = 0$. Extensions to systems with hard-core
234: interactions between traps \cite{core} or fluctuating chemical
235: activities of traps \cite{fluct} have been also provided.
236:
237: Now, the general and physically most important case of trapping
238: reactions when both $A$ and $B$s diffuse with diffusion coefficients
239: $D_A$ and $D_B$ was not solved exactly up to the present time. It
240: has been proven \cite{leb} that in this case the $A$ particle
241: survival probability obeys
242: \begin{equation}
243: \label{general} \ln P_A(t) = - \lambda_d(D_A,D_B) \times
244: \displaystyle \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
245: \displaystyle t^{1/2}, \;\;\; \mbox{d = 1}, \\
246: \displaystyle \frac{t}{\ln(t)}, \;\;\; \mbox{d = 2}, \\
247: \displaystyle t, \;\;\; \mbox{d = 3},
248: \end{array}
249: \right.
250: \end{equation}
251: which defines its time-dependence exactly.
252:
253: On the other hand, the factor $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ remained for a
254: long time an unknown function of the particles' diffusion
255: coefficients and spatial dimension. Only very recently some rigorous
256: arguments have been presented showing that for $A+B\to B$
257: reactions
258: in low dimensions \cite{bly,benbis,mor,blybis}, the long time decay of $A$
259: particles concentration is exactly as in the TAP problem,
260: Eq.(\ref{k}), and thus is asymptotically \textit{independent} of the
261: $A$ particles diffusion coefficient even in the case when both
262: species diffuse.
263:
264: In three dimensions, however, the precise form of
265: $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ is still undetermined and still very little is
266: known about it. It has been shown that $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ is less
267: than the rate constant calculated within the Smoluchowski approach
268: \cite{burl} and moreover, it has been realized
269: that in case when $D_A$ and $D_B$ are
270: sufficiently small, $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ may be bounded by a
271: non-analytic function of particles' diffusion coefficients
272: \cite{bere}. A perturbation theory approach for calculation of
273: $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ has been proposed in Ref.\cite{szabo} and the
274: corrections to
275: the predictions of the Smoluchowski approach have been evaluated.
276: It was also shown that $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ can not be represented
277: as the function of the combination $D = D_A + D_B$ only, since the
278: diffusion-reaction equations are not separable. Therefore, even in completely catalytic systems
279: the evaluation of $\lambda_d(D_A,D_B)$ represents a fairly
280: complicated many-body problem.
281:
282:
283:
284:
285:
286: In this paper we study the kinetics of the catalytically-activated
287: diffusion-limited reactions in Eq.(\ref{rea}) in the special case
288: when $B$ particles remain unaltered by reactions, i.e. the case of
289: diffusion-limited catalytically-activated trapping reactions,
290: description of which poses such serious technical difficulties even
291: in the non-catalytic systems (see the discussion above). In order
292: to obtain an effective reaction rate for such bi-catalytic reactions
293: taking place in a
294: homogeneous three-dimensional medium, we first develop an analytical
295: approach, inspired by the work of Wilemski and Fixman
296: \cite{wilemski73}, which allows one to estimate the reaction rate
297: for non-catalytic bimolecular reactions. Here we extend this
298: Wilemski-Fixman approach (WFA) to catalytically-activated trapping reactions.
299:
300: We assume that the catalytic subvolumens $C$ are
301: immobile and are spread uniformly in the reaction
302: bath. On the other hand, $A$ and $B$ particles are assumed to
303: perform unconstrained diffusion, and react only when they are
304: simultaneously present in a spherical domain of radius $R$ centered
305: around each catalytic subvolumen $C$. As well, we suppose that there
306: is no other interaction between the particles except for the
307: reaction, which enables us to describe the $A$ particle dynamics in
308: terms of a Fokker-Planck-type equation with a sink term which mimics
309: the presence of the traps $B$ and of the catalytic subvolumens $C$.
310: In order to obtain a closed equation, we follow then the well known
311: Wilemski-Fixman approach (WFA) \cite{wilemski73}. This approximation
312: relies on the time and space separation of the joint probability
313: density; that is, the probability density is assumed to be a product
314: of the equilibrium density and of a certain time-dependent function,
315: supposing that initially the system is at equilibrium. We hasten to
316: remark, that, although the validity domain of this approximation is still not really known, many researchers have shown that the WFA describes
317: quite correctly reaction kinetics in several general situations
318: \cite{doi75,weiss1}. For example, Do\"\i{} \cite{doi75} showed that
319: the WFA can be used for the purely diffusion-limited case ($k =
320: \infty$), contrarily to the intuitive expectation that the WFA is
321: appropriate for systems with a weak chemical reaction rate $k$. We
322: will show also in what follows that the effective reaction constant
323: obtained within such an approach reduces to the well-established
324: results in several limiting cases.
325:
326: Finally, we will present an estimate of the impact of the
327: fluctuation effects on the long-time kinetics of the
328: diffusion-controlled catalytically-activated reactions.
329:
330: The paper is outlined as follows: In section II, we formulate the
331: model and write down basic equations. Section III is devoted to the
332: solution of the evolution equations within the framework of the
333: suitably extended Wilemski and Fixman approach. Here, we determine
334: an effective reaction rate for the bi-catalytic reaction and show
335: that it can be is expressed through different functionals of
336: Brownian motion, known as \textit{residence times} and \textit{joint
337: residence times} of Brownian particles in some specified domains.
338: Further on, in Section IV we calculate the residence times involved
339: and obtain an explicit expression for the effective rate constant
340: describing diffusion-limited catalytically-activated trapping
341: reactions. As well, we discuss its asymptotical behavior in several
342: limiting situations. Next, in Section V we present some estimates of
343: the long-time fluctuation-induced behavior in such systems. Finally,
344: in Section VI we conclude with a brief summary of our results and
345: discussion.
346:
347:
348: \section{Model and basic equations}
349:
350: Consider a three-dimensional reaction bath of volume $V$ comprising
351: a single $A$ particle, $m$ traps $B$, and $q$ immobile catalytic
352: subvolumens $C$ {(see Fig.\ref{f1})}. These catalytic subvolumens
353: are uniformly distributed in the reaction volume with mean
354: concentration $[C]$. The $A$ and $B$ particles diffuse freely with
355: diffusion coefficients $D_A$ and $D_B$, respectively. For
356: simplicity, we assume that $A$ and $B$s are point-like particles of
357: zero radius such that excluded-volume interactions between them can
358: be safely neglected. Now, the reaction between particles - an
359: annihilation of the $A$ particle by any of the $B$s - takes place
360: with a given probability defining the elementary reaction constant
361: $k$ when both species appear simultaneously within a spherical
362: region of radius $R$ (which can be also thought off as the reaction
363: radius) centered around any catalytic subvolumen $C$. Such a
364: "reactive" situation is depicted in Fig.\ref{figtps1}.
365:
366:
367:
368: We now proceed by suitably extending the celebrated approach devised originally by Wilemski and Fixman \cite{wilemski73} for non-catalytic trapping $A + B \to B$
369: reactions. The basic idea behind this approach is that the presence of traps $B$ can be effectively modelled by introducing a sink function $S$
370: into the diffusion equation describing dynamics of the $A$ and $B$ particles. Then, the sink term determines the efficiency of the reaction as a function of the instantaneous separation distance between the $A$ particle and the traps $B$.
371:
372: In the simplest formulation, this sink term can be represented as the Heaviside function, which implies that the reaction takes place with an
373: elementary reaction constant
374: $k$
375: as soon as the $A$ particle appears in the vicinity of any of the traps $B$. Adapting this line of thought, we describe the $A$
376: and $B$ particles dynamics in terms of the following multivarient diffusion equation:
377:
378: \be \label{fp} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}= D_A \nabla_A^2 \Psi + D_B \sum_i^m \nabla_{B_i}^2\Psi - k S\psi \ee
379: where
380: $\Psi(\{\vr\},t)$ is time-dependent $m+1$ particles probability density
381: function, $\{\vr\}=\{\vr_A,\vr_{B_1},...,\vr_{B_m}\}$ defines the positions
382: of the $A$ particle and all $m$ traps $B$, while the sink function
383: $S$ is represented as a set of Heaviside functions $H(x)$, ($H(x)=1$
384: if $x\geq 0$ and $H(x)=0$ for $x<0$), centered around $q$ catalytic
385: subvolumens:
386:
387: \be \label{Sdef} \nonumber S&=&\frac{1}{V'^2} \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^q
388: H(R-|\vr_A-\vr_{C_k}|) H(R-|\vr_{B_i}-\vr_{C_k}|) \\
389: &\equiv&\frac{1}{V'^2} \sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^q
390: H_{A,C_k}H_{B_i,C_k}, \ee in which
391: $V'$ denotes the volume of a "reactive" domain, $\ds V'=\frac{4}{3}
392: \pi R^3$, (see Fig.\ref{figtps1}).
393:
394:
395:
396: Consequently, the desired probability $P(t)$ that the $A$ particle survives up to time $t$ obeys:
397:
398: \be \label{psdef} P(t)=\int d\{\vr\} \Psi(\{\vr\},t), \ee
399: and can be readily evaluated once $\Psi(\{\vr\},t)$ is known.
400:
401: \section{Solution of the evolution equation.}
402:
403: Equation (\ref{fp}) can be cast into an equivalent form by
404: using the Green function $G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0)$ of equation
405: (\ref{fp}) without the sink term, the latter being considered as an inhomogeneity \cite{wilemski73}. In doing so, we find that
406: the formal solution of equation (\ref{fp}) reads:
407:
408: \be \label{q} \nonumber \Psi(\{\vr\},t)=\int d\{\vr'\} \Psi(\{\vr'\},0)
409: G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr'\},0)\\
410: - k\int_0^t dt^0 \int d\{\vr^0\} G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0) S(\{\vr^0\}) \Psi(\{\vr^0\},t^0). \ee
411: Note that $G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0)$ of equation (\ref{fp}) without the sink term factorizes:
412:
413: \be G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0)=G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0) \prod_{u=1}^mG_B(\vr_{B_u},t;\vr_{B_u}^0,t^0). \ee
414: Now, supposing that at $t = 0$ the traps $B$ were uniformly distributed in the reaction bath, i.e. that $\Psi(\{\vr'\},0)=\Psi(0)$, we find that
415: the first term on the right-hand-side of Eq.(\ref{q}) reduces to $\Psi(0)$.
416: %\be \int d\{\vr'\} \Psi(\{\vr'\},0) G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr'\},0)=\Psi(0)\int d\{\vr'\} G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr'\},0)=\Psi(0). \ee
417: Following the reasonings of Wilemski and Fixman, we assume further on that $\Psi(0)$ is the equilibrium density $\Psi_{eq}=1/V^{m+1}$. This
418: corresponds to the physical situation when the system is first brought to equilibrium and the reaction is triggered then at time $t=0$. Next,
419: multiplying both sides of Eq.(\ref{q}) by $S(\{\vr\})$ and integrating it over all spatial variables $\{\vr\}$, we obtain:
420:
421: \be \label{vt} \nonumber v(t)=v_{eq}-k\int_0^t dt^0 \int d\{\vr\}\int
422: d\{\vr^0\} S(\{\vr\}) \\
423: \times G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0)S(\{\vr^0\}) \Psi(\{\vr^0\},t^0)
424: \ee where, by definition, $v(t)\equiv\int d\{\vr\} S(\{\vr\})
425: \Psi(\{\vr\},t)$ and, equivalently, $v_{eq}\equiv\int d\{\vr\}
426: S(\{\vr\}) \Psi_{eq}$. Using next the definition of $S(\{\vr\})$
427: given in equation (\ref{Sdef}), we obtain for $v_{eq}$:
428:
429: \be \nonumber v_{eq} & = & \frac{1}{V'^2}\frac{1}{V^{m+1}}\sum_{i=1}^m
430: \sum_{k=1}^q V^{m-1}\int d\vr_Ad\{\vr_{B_j}\}H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k} \\
431: \nonumber & = & \frac{1}{V'^2}\frac{1}{V^{m+1}}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^q V^{m-1} V'^2
432: = \frac{mq}{V^2}. \ee
433:
434: Further on, integrating equation (\ref{fp}) over all $\{\vr\}$, and
435: using the definition of the survival probability (\ref{psdef}), we
436: find that:
437:
438: \be \label{relphiv} \frac{d P(t)}{dt}=-kv(t). \ee
439:
440: Consequently, the function $v(t)$ determines the rate of the time evolution of the $A$ particle survival probability.
441:
442: In order to obtain a closed equation for $v(t)$, we follow again
443: Wilemski and Fixman method, assuming that $\Psi(\{\vr\},t)$
444: can be split into the product of a time-dependent function and the
445: equilibrium density corresponding to the situation without reaction,
446: knowing that initially $\Psi(\{\vr\},0)=\Psi_{eq}$. This
447: approximation is valid \textit{a priori} for a small enough value of
448: the reaction rate $k$, such that the probability density can be
449: thought of being close to the equilibrium's one at any time. As a
450: matter of fact, this approximation still holds in much more general
451: situations, for example when the reaction is
452: diffusion-limited ($k = \infty$), as it was shown by Do\"\i{} \cite{doi75}. A
453: detailed discussion of this approximation can be found in Refs.
454: \cite{weiss,battezzati,perico}. Applying it to our
455: case of the catalytically-activated diffusion-limited trapping
456: reactions, we have:
457:
458: \be \Psi(\{\vr\},t)\approx \Psi_{eq} \nu (t). \ee
459: Noticing next that
460:
461: \be \nonumber \int d\{\vr\} S \Psi &=& \nu(t) \int d\{\vr\} S
462: \Psi_{eq}=\nu(t) v_{eq} \equiv v(t), \ee we get $\nu(t)=v(t)/v_{eq}$
463: and hence, the approximated probability density reads:
464:
465: \be \Psi=\Psi_{eq} \frac{v(t)}{v_{eq}}. \ee The latter equation,
466: within the framework of the Wilemski-Fixman approximation, yields
467: the following result for $v(t)$:
468:
469: \be \label{vtI} v(t)=v_{eq} -k\frac{\Psi_{eq}}{v_{eq}}\int_0^t dt^0 v(t^0) I, \ee
470: where the integral $I$ is given explicitly by:
471:
472: \be I&=& \frac{1}{V'^4} \sum_{i,j,k,l} \int d\{\vr\}\int d\{\vr^0\} H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k} H_{A^0,C_l} H_{B_j^0,C_l} G(\{\vr\},t;\{\vr^0\},t^0).
473: \ee
474:
475: In order to obtain an explicit expression for this integral, and
476: thus to get an access to the kinetic behavior of the survival
477: probability, we consider it in more detail below. We note that $I$
478: can be split into four parts, when specifying the following different events:
479: the $A$ particle, initially present in the $k$-th subvolumen $C$
480: together with the $i$-th particle $B$, will further encounter either
481: the same $B$ particle ($i=j$) or another $B$ particle ($i\neq j$) in
482: either the same subvolumen $C$($k=l$) or some other subvolumen $C$
483: ($k\neq l$).
484:
485: First, let us consider the integral $I_{ijkl}$ for $i\neq j$. Integrating over $\vr_{B_u}$ for $u\neq i$ and over $\vr^0_{B_v}$
486: for $v\neq j$, we obtain:
487:
488: \be I_{ijkl;i\neq j}&=&\frac{V^{m-2}}{V'^4} \int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B_i} d\vr_{B_j}^0 H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k} H_{A^0,C_l} H_{B_j^0,C_l}
489: G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0). \ee
490: Next, performing the integration of the Heaviside functions $H_{B_j^0,C_l}$ and $H_{B_i,C_k}$ over $d\vr_{B_i}$ and $d\vr_{B_j}^0$, we have:
491:
492: \be I_{ijkl;i\neq j}&=&\frac{V^{m-2}}{V'^2} \int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 H_{A,C_k} H_{A^0,C_l} G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0). \ee
493:
494: Let us now consider the integral $I_{ijkl}$ for $i=j$. Integrating over the variables which do not appear as arguments of the
495: Heaviside functions, we can write that:
496:
497: \be \nonumber I_{iikl}&=&\frac{V^{m-1}}{V'^4} \int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B_i} d\vr_{B_i}^0 H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k} H_{A^0,C_l} H_{B_i^0,C_l}\\
498: && \times G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0) G_B(\vr_{B_i},t;\vr_{B_i}^0,t^0). \ee
499: Note that when $k=l$, $H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k} H_{A^0,C_l} H_{B_i^0,C_l}$ reduces to $H_{A,C_k} H_{B_i,C_k}$.
500:
501: Finally, using the latter decomposition of the integral $I$, and
502: once again splitting it with respect to cases $k=l$ and $k\neq l$,
503: summing over $i,j,k,l$ we obtain:
504:
505: \be \label{Iint} \nonumber I&=&m(m-1)qI_{ijkk;i\neq
506: j}+mqI_{iikk}+m(m-1)\\
507: &&\times q(q-1)I_{ijkl;i\neq j,k\neq l}+mq(q-1)I_{iikl;k\neq l}. \ee
508:
509: Now we have to average the integral $I$ over the positions of the
510: catalytic subvolumens $C$. Performing such averaging and denoting it
511: by angle brackets with the subscript $\vr_C$, we have the following
512: four terms:
513:
514: \be \nonumber \mbox{\textbf{(1) }}& \langle I_{ijkk;i\neq j}\rangle_{\vr_{C_k}}&=\frac{V^{m-2}}{V'^2}\int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 H_{A} H_{A^0}
515: G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0) \\ \nonumber &&\equiv V^{m-2}\chi(t-t^0) \\ \mbox{\textbf{(2) }} \nonumber &\langle I_{ijkl;i\neq j,k\neq
516: l}\rangle_{\vr_{C_k},\vr_{C_l}}&=\frac{V^{m-2}}{V'^2}\frac{VV'^2}{V^2}=\frac{V^{m-2}}{V}
517: \\ \mbox{\textbf{(3) }} \nonumber &\langle
518: I_{iikk}\rangle_{\vr_{C_k}}&= \frac{V^{m-1}}{V'^4}\int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B_i} d\vr_{B_i}^0 \\ \nonumber &\times H_{A} H_{B_i}H_{A^0}
519: H_{B_i^0}\times & G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,t^0)
520: G_B(\vr_{B_i},t;\vr_{B_i}^0,t^0) \\ \nonumber &&\equiv \frac{V^{m-1}}{V'^2}\kappa_1(t-t^0) \\
521: \mbox{\textbf{(4) }} \nonumber &\langle I_{iikl;k\neq l}\rangle_{\vr_{C_k},\vr_{C_l}}&= \frac{V^{m-1}}{V'^4}\frac{1}{V}\int d\vu d\vr_A d\vr_A^0
522: d\vr_{B_i}d\vr_{B_i}^0 \\ \nonumber &\times H_{A} H_{B_i}H_{A^0} H_{B_i^0}&\times G_A(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0+\vu,t^0)
523: G_B(\vr_{B_i},t;\vr_{B_i}^0+\vu,t^0) \\
524: &&\equiv\frac{V^{m-1}}{VV'^2}\kappa_2(t-t^0) \ee where $\chi(t)$,
525: $\kappa_1(t)$ and $\kappa_2(t)$ are some functionals of time, which
526: will be made explicit in the next section.
527:
528: Using the latter results, we may express the $v(t)$ function in
529: terms of the functionals $\chi(t-t^0)$, $\kappa_1(t-t^0)$ and
530: $\kappa_2(t-t^0)$. This gives
531:
532: \be \label{vtF} \nonumber v(t)&=&v_{eq}-k\frac{(m-1)(q-1)}{V^2}\int_0^t dt^0 v(t^0)-k\frac{m-1}{V}\int_0^t dt^0v(t^0)\chi(t-t^0)\\
533: &&-\frac{k}{V'^2} \int_0^t dt^0v(t^0)\kappa_1(t-t^0)-k\frac{q-1}{VV'^2}\int_0^t dt^0 v(t^0)\kappa_2(t-t^0). \ee
534:
535: Now, defining the Laplace transformation over the time variable of a
536: function $f(t)$ as $\wh{f}(s)\equiv \int_0^{\infty}dtf(t)e^{-st}$,
537: and performing the Laplace transformation of both sides of
538: Eq.(\ref{vtF}), we get:
539:
540: \be \wh{v}(s)=\frac{v_{eq}}{s}-\frac{k v_{eq} \wh{v}(s)}{s}-k[B]\wh{v}(s)\wh{\chi}(s)-\frac{k}{V'^2}\wh{v}(s)\wh{\kappa}_1(s)
541: -\frac{k[C]}{V'^2}\wh{v}(s)\wh{\kappa}_2(s) \ee
542: where $\ds \frac{(m-1)(q-1)}{V^2}\simeq [B][C]=v_{eq}$, which implies that the Laplace-transformed $v(t)$ function is given explicitly by
543:
544: \be \wh{v}(s)=\frac{v_{eq}}{s\left(1+k[B]\wh{\chi}(s)+\frac{k\wh{\kappa}_1(s)}{V'^2}+\frac{k[C]\wh{\kappa}_2(s)}{V'^2}+k v_{eq}\right)}. \ee
545:
546: Now, in virtue of equation (\ref{relphiv}), $\wh{v}(s)$ and the
547: Laplace-transformed survival probability are related to each other
548: as
549:
550: \be \wh{P}(s)=\frac{1-k\wh{v}(s)}{s} \ee
551:
552: Hence, the Laplace-transformed survival probability obeys:
553:
554: \be \label{pp} \wh{P}(s)=\left[ s+\frac{k
555: v_{eq}}{1+k[B]\wh{\chi}(s)+\frac{k}{V'^2}\wh{\kappa}_1(s)+\frac{k[C]}{V'^2}\wh{\kappa}_2(s)}
556: \right]^{-1}. \ee It can be shown \cite{rice,wilemski73} that $\wh{\chi}(s)$, $\wh{\kappa}_1(s)$ and $\wh{\kappa}_2(s)$ can be replaced by their value for $s=0$ to obtain the long time behaviour of $P(t)$. Thus, inverting the latter equation in the limit $t\to \infty$, the $A$
557: particle survival probability $P(t)$ decays exponentially as:
558:
559: \be P(t) \simeq
560: \exp{\left(-\frac{k[B][C]t}{1+k[B]\wh{\chi}(0)+\frac{k\wh{\kappa}_1(0)}{V'^2}+\frac{k[C]\wh{\kappa}_2(0)}{V'^2}}\right)}
561: \ee and consequently, comparing the latter equation against the
562: conventional form\be P(t) \simeq \exp{\left(- k_{eff} [B] t\right)}
563: \ee we have that the effective, overall reaction rate $k_{eff}$
564: describing the kinetics of diffusion-limited catalytically-activated
565: reactions obeys:
566:
567: \be \label{lll}\frac{1}{k_{eff}} = \frac{1}{k [C]}+\frac{[B]
568: \wh{\chi}(0)}{[C]}+\frac{\wh{\kappa}_1(0)}{V'^2
569: [C]}+\frac{\wh{\kappa}_2(0)}{V'^2} \ee which can be thought of as
570: some "law of addition of inverse resistivities" and resembles
571: (although has a more complex form) the classical result of Collins
572: and Kimball for diffusion-limited trapping reactions with finite
573: elementary reaction constant $k$ \cite{collins}.
574:
575: Equation (\ref{lll}) is the central result of our analysis. Functions $\wh{\chi}(0),\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ and $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$ are studied in the next section.
576:
577: %In the
578: %next section we will show that functions
579: %$\wh{\chi}(0),\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ and $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$ have a lucid
580: %physical meaning and can be evaluated explicitly.
581:
582:
583:
584:
585:
586: \section{Residence times}
587:
588: In this section we show that functions
589: $\wh{\chi}(0),\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ and $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$ have an
590: apparent physical interpretation in terms of different residence
591: times of Brownian paths in finite domains and may be evaluated in
592: explicit form.
593:
594: \subsection{One-particle's residence time}
595:
596: The function $\wh{\chi}(0)$ entering the effective reaction rate is
597: defined by:
598:
599: \be \wh{\chi}(0)=\frac{1}{V'^2}\int_0^{\infty}dt \int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 H_{A} H_{A^0}G(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,0). \ee
600:
601: One notices now that $\wh{\chi}(0)$ can be interpreted as the total
602: time spent in a sphere of radius $R$ by a Brownian particle $A$,
603: which started its diffusion at time $t = 0$ at position $\vr_A^0$
604: (see figure \ref{figtps2}), averaged over all initial positions
605: inside this sphere. In other words, this time is the cumulative residence
606: time inside the sphere up to an infinite observation time. In one or
607: two dimensions it is infinite since the particle is certain to come
608: back to the sphere, but in three dimensions it is finite since the
609: particle can travel to infinity and thus is not certain to return.
610:
611:
612:
613: This residence time is well known \cite{berezhkovskii98}, and can be
614: calculated rather straightforwardly. Indeed, integrating first over
615: the time with the change of variable $\ds y=\frac{1}{t}$, we obtain:
616:
617: \be \wh{\chi}(0)=\frac{1}{V'^2}\int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 H_{A}
618: H_{A^0}\frac{1}{4\pi D_A}\frac{1}{||\vr_A-\vr_A^0||} \ee Now, since
619: \be \ds
620: \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{\pi}\frac{1}{||\vr_A-\vr_A^0||}\sin{\theta}d\theta
621: d\phi=\frac{4\pi}{max(r_A,r_A^0)}, \ee we have:
622:
623: \be \wh{\chi}(0)=\frac{1}{V'^2}\frac{4\pi}{D}\int_0^R dr_A r_A^2
624: \int_0^R dr_A^0 (r_A^0)^2 \frac{1}{max(r_A,r_A^0)}. \ee Splitting
625: next the second integral into the sum $\ds
626: \int_0^R=\int_0^{r_A}+\int_{r_A}^R$, we get: \be
627: \wh{\chi}(0)=\frac{1}{V'^2}\frac{16\pi R^5}{30D_A}, \ee which
628: yields, eventually, the following result:
629:
630: \be \wh{\chi}(0)^{-1}=\frac{5}{6} 4\pi D_AR. \ee We hasten to
631: remark that this expression, up to a numerical factor $5/6$,
632: coincides with the famous expression for the Smoluchowski reaction
633: constant in three dimensions, $K_S = 4\pi D_AR$.
634:
635: \subsection{Two-particle's joint residence time}
636:
637: Now, we turn to two other functions - $\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ and
638: $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$, entering equation (\ref{ll}). The first one is
639: formally defined by:
640:
641:
642: \be \label{kappa1} \nonumber
643: \wh{\kappa}_1(0)&=&\frac{1}{V'^2}\int_0^{\infty}dt\int d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B_i} d\vr_{B_i}^0 H_{A} H_{B_i}\\
644: && \times H_{A^0} H_{B_i^0} G(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0,0)
645: G(\vr_{B_i},t;\vr_{B_i}^0,0). \ee One may now notice that
646: $\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ corresponds to the joint residence time in a
647: sphere of radius $R$ of particles $A$ and $B$, averaged over all
648: initial positions of particles $A$ and $B$ inside the sphere (see
649: figure \ref{figtps3}).
650:
651:
652:
653: Such a residence time has been amply discussed in another work
654: \cite{nousresidence}, and here we will merely present the result of
655: these calculations. It has been shown in Ref.\cite{nousresidence}
656: that $\wh{\kappa}_1(0)$ is a complicated function of the diffusion
657: coefficients $D_A$ and $D_B$ and is given explicitly by:
658:
659: \be
660: \wh{\kappa}_1(0)=\frac{R^2}{20\pi}\left\{\frac{1}{D_A}m\left(\frac{D_A}{D_B}\right)+
661: \frac{1}{D_B}m\left(\frac{D_B}{D_A}\right)\right\} \ee where
662:
663: \be \label{mx} m(x)=\frac{2-10\ln(1+x)}{x^{1/2}}-2\frac{\ln(1+x)}{x^{3/2}}+16\arctan(\sqrt{x})-\frac{7}{2} x^{1/2}. \ee
664:
665: Finally, the last undetermined function $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$ obeys:
666:
667: \be \nonumber \label{twojoint} \wh{\kappa}_2(0)=\frac{1}{V'^2}\int_0^{\infty}dt\int d\vu d\vr_A d\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B_i}d\vr_{B_i}^0 H_{A} H_{B_i}H_{A^0} H_{B_i^0} \\
668: \times G(\vr_A,t;\vr_A^0+\vu,0) G(\vr_{B_i},t;\vr_{B_i}^0+\vu,0). \ee
669:
670: One notices that it may be interpreted as the joint
671: residence time of particles $A$ and $B$ inside a sphere when the
672: particles initially start from a sphere separated by the vector
673: $\vu$ from the residence sphere (see figure \ref{figtps4}). Note
674: that the joint residence time $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$ is obtained when
675: summing over all $\vu$.
676:
677:
678: It is shown in Appendix that:
679: \be \frac{V'^2}{\wh{\kappa}_2(0)}&=&4\pi R(D_A+D_B)\frac{385}{334}\approx 1.15\times 4 \pi R(D_A+D_B). \ee
680:
681: \subsection{Effective reaction rate}
682:
683: Eventually, summing up the results of this section, we present an
684: explicit expression for the effective reaction rate describing the
685: kinetics of diffusion-limited catalytically-activated trapping
686: reactions in terms of a suitably extended Wilemski and Fixman
687: approach:
688:
689: \be \label{ll} \nonumber \frac{1}{k_{eff}} = \frac{1}{k [C]}
690: +\frac{[B]}{\frac{5}{6} 4\pi D_A R [C]} + \\
691: +\frac{1}{g(D_A,D_B)\pi^3R^4[C]} +\frac{1}{\frac{385}{334} 4 \pi
692: R(D_A+D_B)} \ee
693:
694: where
695: $g^{-1}(D_A,D_B)=\frac{9}{320}\left\{\frac{1}{D_A}m\left(\frac{D_A}{D_B}\right)+
696: \frac{1}{D_B}m\left(\frac{D_B}{D_A}\right)\right\}$, $m(x)$ being
697: defined in equation (\ref{mx}). Note that the correlations that are
698: neglected in the Wilemski-Fixman approximation cannot be estimated
699: precisely, so that it is difficult to find how they affect the
700: different terms included into the reaction constant. However, these
701: terms should not be considered as successive corrections to the
702: usual expression for a bimolecular reaction. In fact, the joint
703: residence time of two molecules on a catalytic site cannot be
704: treated as a perturbation of the residence time of one molecule on
705: this site, except in some limit cases. Clearly, our results should
706: be compared to experimental or numerical results in order to be
707: discussed.
708:
709:
710: Consider now the behavior of the effective reaction constant in
711: Eq.(\ref{ll}) in several limiting cases. In non-catalytic systems,
712: in which the $A$ and $B$ particles may react at any point, which
713: corresponds to an evident situation with $[C] \to \infty$ (but $k
714: [C] = K$ is kept finite), we find from Eq.(\ref{ll}) that
715:
716: \be \frac{1}{k_{eff}}\simeq \frac{1}{K} + \frac{1}{\frac{385}{334} 4
717: \pi (D_A + D_B) R}, \ee which represents, up to a numerical factor
718: $385/334 \approx 1.15$ in the second term, the classical Collins and
719: Kimball result \cite{collins} describing the effective reaction rate
720: for trapping reactions involving diffusive $A$ and $B$ particles in
721: non-catalytic systems. Note that the numerical factor $385/334$
722: comes from the description of the reactive process which differs
723: between the Collins-Kimball approach and the present case.
724: %Indeed, in the Smoluchowski approach the
725: %reaction takes place when a reactive particle reaches the boundary
726: %of the reactive domain, i.e. the intrinsic chemical rate $k$ is
727: %assumed to be infinite, whereas in the Wilemski-Fixman approach the
728: %reaction depends on the residence time of a reactive particle in the
729: %reactive domain.
730:
731:
732: Next, we turn to a different trivial situation when the particles $B$
733: are present in a great excess, i.e. $[B] \to \infty$, such that
734: their diffusion becomes irrelevant. In this limiting case we find
735: from Eq.(\ref{ll}) the following result: \be k_{eff} \simeq
736: \frac{5}{6} \frac{4 \pi D_A R [C]}{[B]}, \ee such that the $A$
737: particle survival probability follows \be P(t) \simeq
738: \exp{\left(-\frac{5}{6} 4 \pi D_A R [C] t \right)} \ee This is,
739: again, a standard Smoluchowski-type (up to a numerical factor $5/6$)
740: prediction for trapping $A+C\to C$ reactions with immobile traps C.
741:
742:
743: Finally, some simple analysis shows that for sufficiently small
744: $D_B$ the third term on the right-hand-side of Eq.(\ref{ll})
745: dominates and the effective reaction constant follows \be k_{eff}
746: \simeq g(D_A,D_B) \pi^3 R^4 [C] \ee Surprising feature of this
747: result is that $k_{eff}$ is proportional not to the first power of
748: the reaction radius $R$, but to the \textit{fourth} power of it!
749: Curiously enough, this prediction coincides with earlier results
750: obtained for trimolecular reaction of the form $A+A+C\to P+C$ using
751: an extended Collins-Kimball approach \cite{oshanin98}. This
752: anomalous dependence has been confirmed by Molecular Dynamics
753: simulations in Ref.\cite{tox}.
754:
755:
756: \section{Fluctuation-induced long time behavior}
757:
758: As shown in the introduction for trapping reactions involving diffusive particles, some fluctuation states can change significantly the kinetics of diffusion-limited, catalytically-activated trapping
759: reactions. The particular systems with random placement of the catalytic
760: subvolumens the long-time kinetic behavior is
761: described by a stretched-exponential function, so that the usual kinetic laws do not hold.
762:
763:
764: %\subsection{Small diffusion coefficients}
765:
766: %Following the ideas put forward for non-catalytic trapping reaction
767: %involving diffusive particles \cite{burl,red2,bly,bere}, consider
768: %the following fluctuation state:
769:
770: %Suppose that the catalytic subvolumens $C$ are uniformly distributed
771: %in the reaction bath, the $A$ particle is initially at the origin,
772: %the traps $B$ are also initially uniformly spread in the reaction
773: %bath and the \textit{closest} to the origin (i.e. to the $A$
774: %particle) trap is at the distance $\rho$ apart from it. Then,
775: %following \cite{burl,red2,bly,bere}, we may show that the $A$
776: %particle survival probability $P(t)$ is bounded from \textit{below}
777: %by \be P_{fl}(\rho,t) = P_{void}(\rho) \times P_{A}(\rho,t) \times
778: %P_{B}(\rho,t), \ee where $P_{void}(\rho)$ is the probability of
779: %having a trap-free spherical region of radius $\rho$,
780: %$P_{A}(\rho,t)$ is the probability that the $A$ particle will not
781: %leave this region up to time $t$ and $P_{B}(\rho,t)$ is the
782: %probability that neither of traps $B$ will \textit{enter} this
783: %region up to time $t$. In this case, the $A$ particle will not have
784: %a chance to be annihilated (even regardless the constraint of having
785: %a third body - catalytic subvolumens $C$) up to time $t$ since it
786: %will not simply meet any $B$ particle.
787:
788:
789: %These probabilities are well-known \cite{burl,red2,bly,bere} and we
790: %may write \be \label{bound} P(t) \geq \exp{\left(- \frac{4}{3} \pi
791: %\rho^3 [B] \right)} \times \exp{\left(- \frac{D_A}{\rho^2} t
792: %\right)} \times \exp{\left(- 4 \pi D_B [B] \rho t \right)} \ee Now,
793: %the expression on the right-hand-side of Eq.(\ref{bound}) is the
794: %lower bound and is valid for any value of $\rho$. In order to have
795: %the best lower bound, we have to find such a value of $\rho$, which
796: %maximizes it. It is clear that for sufficiently long times, the
797: %first term is irrelevant since it does not contain the time
798: %variable, and the only significant ones are the second and the third
799: %terms. Differentiating the exponent with respect to $\rho$, we find
800: %that the optimal value of $\rho$, which maximizes the bound, is
801: %given by \be \rho = \left(\frac{D_A}{2 \pi D_B [B]}\right)^{1/3} \ee
802: %Consequently, we have that $P(t)$ is bounded from below by \be P(t)
803: %\geq \exp{\left(- 3 (2 \pi)^{2/3} D_A^{1/3} D_B^{2/3} [B]^{2/3}
804: %t\right)}, \ee which means that the effective reaction rate constant
805: %$k'_{eff}$ supported by such fluctuation states has the form \be
806: %\label{kof} k'_{eff} = 3 (2 \pi)^{2/3} D_A^{1/3} D_B^{2/3}
807: %[B]^{-1/3} \ee It is straightforward to check that for sufficiently
808: %small $D_A$ and $D_B$, $k'_{eff} << k_{eff}$, Eq.(\ref{ll}), which
809: %implies that in such situations the effective reaction constant
810: %describing kinetics of diffusion-limited catalytically-activated
811: %reactions is determined by fluctuation states and given by the
812: %anomalous form in Eq.(\ref{kof}).
813:
814: %\subsection{Long-time behavior}
815:
816: Suppose that the $A$ particle is initially at the origin, the
817: traps $B$ are also initially uniformly spread in the reaction bath
818: and the immobile catalytic subvolumens $C$ are randomly distributed
819: in the reaction bath such that the \textit{closest} to the origin
820: (i.e. to the $A$ particle) subvolumen is at the distance $\rho$
821: apart from it. Then, the $A$ particle survival probability is
822: evidently bounded from below by \be \label{bou} P(t) \geq P_{lac}
823: \times P_{A}(\rho,t), \ee where $P_{lac}$ is the probability of
824: having a spherical region of radius $\rho$ completely devoid of the
825: \textit{catalytic subvolumens $C$} and $P_{A}(\rho,t)$ is, again,
826: the probability that the $A$ particle will not leave this region up
827: to time $t$; in these conditions, the diffusive $A$ particle may
828: meet the diffusive traps $B$ many times but the reaction can not
829: take place since the necessary ingredient of the elementary act -
830: the presence of the catalytic subvolumen $C$, will not be fulfilled.
831:
832: Consequently, the $A$ particle survival probability obeys \be P(t)
833: \geq \exp{\left(- \frac{4}{3} \pi \rho^3 [C] \right)} \times
834: \exp{\left(- \frac{D_A}{\rho^2} t \right)} \ee This bound is
835: valid for any $\rho$ and we have to choose such value of it, which
836: provides the maximal lower bound. Maximizing the right-hand-side of
837: the latter equation, we find that the optimal $\rho$ is $\rho \sim
838: (D_A t/2 \pi [C])^{1/5}$, which yields \be \label{too} P(t) \geq
839: \exp{\left(- \frac{3}{5} (2 \pi)^{2/5} [C]^{2/5} (D_A
840: t)^{3/5}\right)}, \ee i.e. the law similar to the one in
841: Eq.(\ref{traps}) describing the long-time evolution of the survival
842: probability of a particle diffusing in presence of immobile,
843: randomly placed traps.
844:
845: Since the right-hand-side of Eq.(\ref{too}) decays slower than
846: exponentially, we may infer that at long-times the kinetics of
847: diffusion-limited catalytically-activated trapping reactions will be
848: supported by such fluctuation states and will be described by a
849: stretched-exponential function of time. The comparison of \ref{too} with the classical kinetic law given by \ref{ll} shows that in all conditions the bound \ref{too} should only be considered for excecdingly long times, so that the classical law usually holds.
850:
851:
852:
853:
854:
855:
856:
857:
858: \section{Conclusion}
859:
860: To conclude, in this paper we have studied the kinetics of the
861: catalytically-activated diffusion-limited reactions in
862: Eq.(\ref{rea}) in the special case when $B$ particles remain
863: unaltered by reactions, i.e. the case of diffusion-limited
864: catalytically-activated trapping reactions. In order to obtain an
865: effective reaction rate for such bi-catalytic reactions, we have
866: developed an analytical approach based on the work of Wilemski and
867: Fixman \cite{wilemski73}, which allowed us to calculate analytically
868: the effective reaction constant. We have shown that this effective
869: reaction constant comprises several terms which may be interpreted
870: in terms of the residence and joint residence times of Brownian
871: paths in finite domains. We have demonstrated that the effective
872: reaction constant exhibits a non-trivial dependence on the reaction
873: radii, the mean density of catalytic subvolumens and particles'
874: diffusion coefficients. Finally, we have discussed the impact of
875: several fluctuation states giving rise to anomalous
876: fluctuation-induced contributions to the long-time kinetic behavior in such systems. Except in this asymptotic case, however the usual kinetic laws hold with the effective reaction constant calculated previously. These results can be very useful not only in the theory of heterogeneous catalysis, but also in biology, when reactions can only take place on specific sites.
877:
878:
879: \section{Acknowledgments}
880:
881:
882: The authors wish to thank Prof. M.Tachiya and Prof. H.Wio for
883: fruitful discussions. G.O. acknowledges the financial support from
884: the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation via the Bessel Research Award.
885:
886:
887: \section{Appendix: Joint residence time in a distant sphere}
888:
889: In order to evaluate explicitly the function given in \ref{twojoint}, we first integrate the
890: two propagators over $\vu$:
891:
892: \be \nonumber \int d\vu G(\vr_A+\vu,t|\vr_A^0,0)
893: G(\vr_{B}+\vu,t|\vr_{B}^0,0)\\
894: \nonumber =\int d\vX G_{\frac{D_AD_B}{D_A+D_B}}(\vX,t|\vX^0,0) G_{D_A+D_B}(\vr_{B}-\vr_A,t|\vr_{B}^0-\vr_A^0,0) \\
895: = G_{D_A+D_B}(\vr_{B}-\vr_A,t|\vr_{B}^0-\vr_A^0,0), \ee where
896:
897: \be \nonumber
898: \vX&=&\frac{D_B}{D_A+D_B}(\vr_A+\vu)+\frac{D_A}{D_A+D_B}(\vr_B+\vu)\\
899: \vX^0&=&\frac{D_B}{D_A+D_B}(\vr_A^0+\vu)+\frac{D_A}{D_A+D_B}(\vr_B^0+\vu)
900: \ee and $G_D$ is the Gaussian propagator associated to the diffusion
901: coefficient $D$.
902:
903: Then, the integral defined in (\ref{twojoint}) attains the following
904: form:
905:
906: \be \nonumber V'^2\wh{\kappa}_2(0)=\int_0^{\infty}dtd\vr_A^0 d\vr_{B}^0 d\vro_A
907: d\vro_B H_{A^0} H_{B^0}\\
908: H_{\vro_A,A^0} H{\vro_B,B^0} G_{D_A+D_B}(\vro_{B}-\vro_A,t|\vze,0)
909: \ee where $\vro_B=\vr_B-\vr_B^0$ and $\vro_A=\vr_A-\vr_A^0$. The
910: calculation of this equation requires the analysis of integrals of
911: the following type:
912:
913: \be \int d\vr_A^0H_{A^0}H_{\vro_A,A^0} \ee which represent the
914: overlapping area between two spheres (see figure \ref{recouvs}).
915:
916:
917:
918: This area can be straightforwardly obtained:
919:
920: \be \mathcal{A}&=&2\int_{\rho_A/2}^{R}dr \pi (R^2-r^2)=\frac{\pi}{3}(R-\rho_A/2)^2(4R+\rho_A). \ee
921:
922: Next, we have to calculate the integral
923:
924: \be \nonumber V'^2\wh{\kappa}_2(0)=\int_0^{\infty}dtd\vro_A d\vro_B
925: H(2R-|\vro_A|)H(2R-|\vro_B|)\\
926: \nonumber
927: \left[\frac{\pi}{3}(R-\vro_A/2)^2(4R+\vro_A)\right]\left[\frac{\pi}{3}(R-\vro_B/2)^2(4R+\vro_B)\right]\\
928: \times G_{D_A+D_B}(\vro_{B}-\vro_A,t|\vze,0). \ee Using the explicit
929: expression for the propagators and integrating them over the time
930: variable, we obtain
931:
932: \be I=\int d\vro_A d\vro_B H(2R-|\vro_A|)H(2R-|\vro_B|)
933: \frac{\rho_A^n\rho_B^m}{||\vro_B-\vro_A||} \ee and
934:
935: \be
936: \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{\pi}\frac{1}{||\vro_B-\vro_A||}\sin{\theta_B}d\theta_Bd\phi_B=\frac{4\pi}{max(\rho_A,\rho_B)}
937: \ee which yields
938:
939: \be I=(4\pi)^2\int_0^{2R}d\rho_A \rho_A^{n+2}\int_0^{2R}d\rho_B
940: \rho_B^{m+2}\frac{1}{max(\rho_A,\rho_B)} \ee Consequently, the
941: latter equation enables us to evaluate an
942: explicit expression for $\wh{\kappa}_2(0)$:
943:
944: \be \frac{V'^2}{\wh{\kappa}_2(0)}&=&4\pi R(D_A+D_B)\frac{385}{334}\approx 1.15\times 4 \pi R(D_A+D_B). \ee
945:
946:
947:
948:
949: \begin{thebibliography}{Lam91a}
950:
951:
952:
953: \bibitem{bond} G.C.Bond, {\it Heterogeneous Catalysis: Principles and
954: Applications}, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987)
955:
956: \bibitem{rice}
957: S.A. Rice, {\it Diffusion-Limited Reactions}, eds.: C.H Bamford et
958: al, Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics {\bf 25}, 1985
959:
960: \bibitem{moreau95} S.F.Burlatsky and M. Moreau, Phys. Rev. E
961: \textbf{51}, 2363 (1995)
962:
963:
964:
965: \bibitem{oshanin98} G. Oshanin and A. Blumen. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf
966: 108}, 1140 (1998)
967:
968: \bibitem{tox} S.Toxvaerd, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 109}, 8527 (1998)
969:
970: \bibitem{biotf} Calkhoven CF and Ab G, Biochem J. {\bf 317}, 329-42. (1996)
971:
972: \bibitem{feib} P.J.Feibelman and J.Harris, Nature (London) {\bf 372}, 135 (1994)
973:
974:
975:
976: \bibitem{klafter} A. Blumen, J. Klafter and G. Zumofen,
977: in: Optical Spectroscopy of Glasses, ed.: I. Zschokke, (Reidel
978: Publ., Dordrecht, 1986)
979:
980: \bibitem{ov} A.A.Ovchinnikov and Ya.B.Zeldovich, Chem. Phys. {\bf 28}, 214 (1978);
981: S.F.Burlatsky, Teor. Exp. Chem. {\bf 14}, 343 (1978); D.Toussaint
982: and F.Wilczek, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 78}, 2642 (1983); S.Redner and
983: K.Kang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 1729 (1983)
984:
985:
986:
987: \bibitem{burl} S.F.Burlatsky and A.A.Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 92}, 1618 (1987)
988: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 65}, 908 (1987)]
989:
990: \bibitem{leb} M.Bramson and J.L.Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}2397 (1988); J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 62}, 297 (1991)
991:
992: \bibitem{bal} B.Ya.Balagurov and V.T.Vaks, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 65}, 1939 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 38}, 968 (1974)]
993:
994:
995:
996: \bibitem{3} T.C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. A {\bf30}, 2657 (1984); S.R. Renn,
997: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 275}, 273 (1986); Th.M. Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev.
998: Lett. {\bf 62}, 357 (1989)
999:
1000: \bibitem{sosiska} C. Monthus, G. Oshanin, A. Comtet and S.F. Burlatsky, Phys.
1001: Rev. E {\bf 54}, 231 (1996)
1002:
1003: \bibitem{don} M.D.Donsker and S.R.S.Varadhan, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 28}, 525 (1975)
1004:
1005: \bibitem{pastur} L.A. Pastur, Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 32}, 88 (1977)
1006:
1007:
1008: \bibitem{gp} P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 77}, 6281
1009: (1982)
1010:
1011: \bibitem{kh} R.F. Kayser and J.B. Hubbard, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 6281
1012: (1982)
1013:
1014: \bibitem{weiss} F. den Hollander and G.H. Weiss,
1015: in: Contemporary Problems in Statistical Physics, ed. G.H. Weiss
1016: (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994)
1017:
1018: \bibitem{fix} M. Fixman, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 81}, 3666 (1984)
1019:
1020: \bibitem{deutch} S.F. Burlatsky, O. Ivanov and J.M. Deutch, J. Chem. Phys.
1021: {\bf 97}, 156 (1992)
1022:
1023: \bibitem{mi} G.Oshanin, S.F.Burlatsky and M.Moreau, Adv. Colloid and Interface Sci. {\bf 49}, 1 (1994)
1024:
1025: \bibitem{tach} M.Tachiya, Radiat. Phys. Chem. {\bf 21}, 167 (1983)
1026:
1027:
1028: \bibitem{blu} A.Blumen, G.Zumofen and J.Klafter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}, 5379 (1984)
1029:
1030: \bibitem{red2} S.Redner and K.Kang, J. Phys. A {\bf 17}, L451 (1984)
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034: \bibitem{szabo} A.Szabo, R.Zwanzig and N.Agmon, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2496 (1988)
1035:
1036: \bibitem{core} S.F.Burlatsky, M.Moreau,
1037: G.Oshanin and A.Blumen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 585 (1995);
1038: D.P.Bhatia, M.A.Prasad and D.Arora, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 586
1039: (1995)
1040:
1041: \bibitem{fluct} O.B\'enichou, M.Moreau and G.Oshanin, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61}, 3388 (2000)
1042:
1043:
1044: \bibitem{bly} A.J. Bray and R.A. Blythe, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89},
1045: 150601 (2002)
1046:
1047: \bibitem{benbis} G. Oshanin, O. B\'enichou, M. Coppey and M. Moreau ,
1048: Phys. Rev. E. \textbf{66}, 060101(R) (2002)
1049:
1050: \bibitem{mor} M. Moreau, G. Oshanin, O. B\'enichou and M. Coppey,
1051: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 045104(R) (2003)
1052:
1053: \bibitem{blybis} A.J. Bray, S.N. Majumdar and R.A. Blythe, Phys. Rev.
1054: E {\bf 67}, 060102(R) (2003)
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063: \bibitem{bere} A.M.Berezhkovskii, Yu.A.Makhnovkii and R.A.Suris,
1064: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 57}, 333 (1989); A.M.Berezhkovskii,
1065: Yu.A.Makhnovskii and R.A.Suris, J. Phys. A {\bf 22}, L615 (1989)
1066:
1067:
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071: \bibitem{wilemski73} G. Wilemski and M. Fixman. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf
1072: 58}, 4009 (1973)
1073:
1074: \bibitem{doi75} M.Doi, Chem. Phys. {\bf 11}, 107 (1975)
1075:
1076:
1077: \bibitem{weiss1} G.H. Weiss. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 80}, 2880 (1984)
1078:
1079: \bibitem{perico} A. Perico and M. Battezzati, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf
1080: 75}, 4430 (1981)
1081:
1082: \bibitem{battezzati} M. Battezzati, and A. Perico. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf
1083: 74}(8), 4527 (1981)
1084:
1085:
1086: \bibitem{collins} F.C. Collins and G.E. Kimball, J. of Colloid Science. {\bf 4}, 425 (1949)
1087:
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093: \bibitem{mi2} G.Oshanin, M.Moreau and S.F.Burlatsky, Adv. Colloid
1094: Inter. Sci. {\bf 49}, 1 (1994)
1095:
1096: \bibitem{berezhkovskii98} A. M. Berezhkovskii, V. Zaloj and
1097: N. Agmon, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 3937 (1998)
1098:
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105: \bibitem{nousresidence} O. B\'enichou, M. Coppey, Y. Klafter, M.
1106: Moreau, and G. Oshanin, J. Phys. A {\bf 38}, 7205 (2005)
1107:
1108:
1109:
1110:
1111:
1112:
1113:
1114: %\bibitem{zhou98} H. X. Zhou, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 108}, 8139 (1998)
1115:
1116: \end{thebibliography}
1117:
1118: \newpage
1119:
1120: \begin{figure}[htb]
1121: \begin{center}
1122: \includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig1.eps}
1123: \end{center}
1124: \caption{\label{f1}}
1125: \end{figure}
1126:
1127: \newpage
1128:
1129: \begin{figure}[htb]
1130: \begin{center}
1131: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig2.eps}
1132: \end{center}
1133: \caption{\label{figtps1}}
1134: \end{figure}
1135:
1136:
1137: \newpage
1138:
1139: \begin{figure}[htb]
1140: \begin{center}
1141: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig3.eps}
1142: \end{center}
1143: \caption{\label{figtps2}}
1144: \end{figure}
1145:
1146: \newpage
1147:
1148: \begin{figure}[htb]
1149: \begin{center}
1150: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4.eps}
1151: \end{center}
1152: \caption{\label{figtps3}}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155: \newpage
1156:
1157: \begin{figure}[htb]
1158: \begin{center}
1159: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5.eps}
1160: \end{center}
1161: \caption{\label{figtps4}}
1162: \end{figure}
1163:
1164: \newpage
1165:
1166: \begin{figure}[htb]
1167: \begin{center}
1168: \includegraphics*[scale=0.4]{fig6.eps}
1169: \caption{\label{recouvs}}
1170: \end{center}
1171: \end{figure}
1172:
1173: \newpage
1174:
1175: %\begin{spacing}{2}
1176:
1177:
1178: {\large \textbf{Figure legend}}
1179:
1180: \bigskip
1181:
1182: \textbf{Figure 1.} Schematic representation of the bi-catalytic reaction:
1183: volume $V$, comprising a single $A$ particle, $m$ diffusing $B$ particles and $q$ immobile
1184: subvolumen $C$.
1185:
1186: \bigskip
1187:
1188: \textbf{Figure 2.} Trimolecular reaction: the trajectories in bold
1189: type are those for which the reaction takes place, i.e. when one
1190: particle $A$ and one $B$ are jointly present in a catalytic domain.
1191:
1192: \bigskip
1193:
1194: \textbf{Figure 3.} Residence time of a Brownian particle in a sphere.
1195:
1196: \bigskip
1197:
1198: \textbf{Figure 4.} Joint residence time in a sphere. Blod lines: trajectories during common residence time.
1199:
1200: \bigskip
1201:
1202: \textbf{Figure 5.} Joint residence time in a distant sphere.
1203:
1204: \bigskip
1205:
1206: \textbf{Figure 6.} Overlapping area between two spheres.
1207:
1208: %\end{spacing}
1209:
1210: \end{document}
1211: