25.02.2013 Views

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

258 8 Effects <strong>of</strong> Temperature on Sorption <strong>and</strong> Diffusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Solute</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Penetration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Water</strong><br />

5. Using the Arrhenius equations given in Fig. 8.3a for the CM number 1 <strong>and</strong> 6,<br />

calculate the rate constants k ∗ at 10 ◦ C <strong>and</strong> 50 ◦ C?<br />

6. Calculate the energy <strong>of</strong> activation for the species/solute combinations shown in<br />

Fig. 8.3b.<br />

7. Why does ED with ivy leaves increase in the order IAA, bifenox, cholesterol?<br />

8. What is the difference between Do <strong>and</strong> Po?<br />

9. <strong>Water</strong> permeance <strong>of</strong> Citrus CM at 5 <strong>and</strong> 35 ◦ C is 1.36 × 10 −8 <strong>and</strong> 1.17 ×<br />

10 −7 m s −1 respectively. For MX, the respective values for Pw is 6.14 × 10 −6<br />

<strong>and</strong> 3.04 × 10 −5 m s −1 (Fig. 8.7, ascending T ). How much larger is Pw <strong>of</strong> the<br />

MX at 5 <strong>and</strong> 35 ◦ C? What are the Arrhenius equations for CM <strong>and</strong> MX?<br />

10. From the slopes given in Fig. 8.9, ED <strong>and</strong> EP can be calculated <strong>and</strong> 10.3 <strong>and</strong><br />

36.7kJ mol −1 respectively are obtained. ∆HS = −26.4kJ mol −1 can be calculated<br />

by difference (10.3–36.7) as specified in (8.18). If ∆HS is calculated from<br />

the slope <strong>of</strong> the plot log Kwv vs 1/T we obtain −30.7kJ mol −1 . How do you<br />

explain this difference between the two ∆HS values?<br />

Solutions<br />

1. K is the slope <strong>of</strong> a plot internal vs external concentration, while k is obtained<br />

when the logarithms <strong>of</strong> the two variables are plotted. When n = 1, then<br />

K = k = 90.<br />

2. ∆G = 0.<br />

3. ∆H = T∆S.<br />

4. ∆S = 66kJ mol −1 K −1 .<br />

5. For CM 6, we obtain 3.7 × 10 −8 (10 ◦ C) <strong>and</strong> 8.2 × 0 −5 s −1 (50 ◦ C) respectively.<br />

For CM 1 we have 4.9 × 10 −9 (10 ◦ C) <strong>and</strong> 4.61 × 10 −5 s −1 (50 ◦ C). With CM 6<br />

having the initially highest k ∗ , the increase with T was 2,216-fold. With CM 1<br />

the increase was even 9,408-fold. The k ∗ ratio between the two CM is 7.55 at<br />

10 ◦ C <strong>and</strong> 1.78 at 50 ◦ C.<br />

6. ED is 123.5kJ mol −1 (Hedera/IAA), 162.5kJ mol −1 (Hedera/bifenox), 189.5kJ<br />

mol −1 (Hedera/cholesterol) <strong>and</strong> 153.4kJ mol −1 (Ilex/bifenox).<br />

7. Because solute size increases from 130, 216 to 349cm 3 mol −1 (Appendix B)<br />

<strong>and</strong> the activation energy is larger when larger holes must be formed in the<br />

membrane matrix.<br />

8. Eo depends on jump distance within the polymer chains <strong>and</strong> entropy (8.11). Po<br />

depends in addition on thickness ℓ <strong>of</strong> the cuticles <strong>and</strong> on sorption <strong>of</strong> water in the<br />

polymer <strong>and</strong> in waxes.<br />

9. The ratio <strong>of</strong> Pw is 451 at 5 ◦ C <strong>and</strong> 260 at 35 ◦ C. The Arrhenius equation for CM<br />

is Po = 3.98–6,142 × 1/T, <strong>and</strong> for the MX Po = 4.44 − 4,571 × 1/T.<br />

10. The individual data points for log Kwv were obtained from individual data <strong>of</strong> log<br />

D <strong>and</strong> log Pw at the respective temperatures. The difference is due to rounding<br />

errors.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!