Re: Study posted 39 days ago

A Spectroscopic Study of MagNascent Iodine
A Report for Magnascent, Inc.

Richard E. Bleil, Ph.D.* and Sarah K. Bleil
6175 Dakota Ave.
Madison, SD 57042
BleilRE@gmail.com
*To whom correspondences should be addressed

Abstract


A spectroscopic study comparing untreated Iodine solution with MagNascent Iodine was performed. Diluting both samples identically, we compared the spectra of both at very sellect wavelengths corresponding to diatomic Iodine, triiodine and nascent Iodine based on the previous quantum mechanical study1. With the information available, exact concentrations of these three species is not possible, however, the study seems to indicate that triiodine concentration is increased by roughly 45%, and nascent iodine concentration is increased by roughly 50% relative to the untreated sample.

Introduction

Recent quantum-mechanical calculations1 on Iodine indicate that, even untreated, a significant portion of the iodine exists as either bent or linear triiodine as well as nascent iodine. Without further extensive studies on the effect magnetic fields have on these species, it is not currently possible to perform similar calculations to determine the change in concentration of these species theoretically. Instead, experimental methods must be utilized. The quantum mechanical studies, however, do provide a key in how spectroscopy could potentially be useful towards these ends.
Within the Ultra Violet (roughly 100 to 400 nm), Visible (roughly 400 to 700 nm) and Infra Red (roughly 700 to 10,000 nm) regions of the electromagnetic spectrum2, there are several wavelengths that correspond specifically to the diatomic, triatomic (both bent and linear forms) and nascent iodine. These wavelengths are a relatively good distance to the next nearest active wavelength, although the spectrum of iodine is so diffuse that spectroscopy may not be the best choice for such studies. However, the speed and cost effectiveness of this method makes it very attractive for such studies. To counteract the difficulties, each species was measured at two wavelengths, where there seems to be as great a distance from the next absorption wavelength as possible. The calculations themselves are well known and are based on Beer’s Law3.
Beer’s Law is based on absorption of light through a sample, that is, a measure of how much light is absorbed in the sample rather than passing through. Absorptivity is related to percent transmission (the amount of light that passes through the sample) logarithmically, as shown in equation 1;

A=2+log(%T)
(1)

where A is absorptivity, and %T is percent transmittence (100*I/Io where I is the intensity of light as it exits the test solution, and Io is the intensity of light that enters the test solution). Beer’s law, formally, is shown in equation 2;

A=lc
(2)

where  is a constant that depends on the wavelength of light selected and the material absorbing the light, l is the path length (that is, how far the light travels through the solution) and c is the concentration of the solution. This equation demonstrates that absorbance increases linearly with concentration, making absorbance the preferred choice as percent transmittance would change logarithmically.
We are all familiar with Beer’s law, whether we know the name or not. For example, we can tell if a solution is lighter or darker in the same type of vessel. If we note that there are two pitchers of roughly the same width with the same flavor and brand of powdered drink in them, we would naturally favor the darker one as we know instinctively that it will have the most flavor. This is because the concentration of drink in the pitcher is higher in the darker one. What’s more, we expect the solution to look lighter to us once we pour it into a glass, because the glass is not as thick as the pitcher. Finally, because of the color of the drink, we know that certain wavelengths (or colors) of light are being absorbed by the drink, while others are passing through unabsorbed.

Calculations

Essentially, there are four forms of iodine that we wish to test for: diatomic iodine, I2; Nascent (or monatomic) iodine, I; and two forms of triiodine, I3. The reason we must test for two forms of triiodine is because there are two major geometries we expect triiodine to assume; linear and bent. Previous quantum mechanical studies on these four species1 have indicated that there are specific wavelengths we can choose to look at these species as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Wavelengths for the Spectroscopic Study
Species Wavelength (nm) Distance from lower nearest species (nm) Lower species wavelength Distance from higher nearest species (nm) Higher species wavelength
I 505 57 I2 17 I3 (linear)
I 606 15 I3 (linear) 4 I3 (bent)
I2 421 23 I3 (bent) 27 I2
I2 448 27 I2 57 I
I3 (linear) 571 15 I3 (bent) 20 I3 (linear)
I3 (linear) 591 20 I3 (linear) 15 I
I3 (bent) 534 4 I3 (linear) 4 I2
I3 (bent) 556 8 I3 (both forms) 15 I3 (linear)

Although the spectrum of iodine is actually quite diffuse, the use of two wavelengths for each species should help us to determine if we have chosen the wavelengths wisely, as relatively consistent results should be expected. As can be seen, some of the choices are closer than we would like for this study (such as bent triiodine at 534 nm), which increases the importance of multiple measurements.
Once completed, standard methods to determine the standard deviation and the 95% confidence limits were performed4. This was done both for the individual wavelengths as well as the average for each species.

Results

The spectroscopy was performed on a Hach DR/3000 single-path spectrometer with wavelengths set to 1 nm. Although the spectrometer can be set with greater precision, the quantum calculations that form the basis of our wavelength selection does not warrant greater precision. The absorbance at each wavelength was measured six times, yielding five degrees of freedom for the statistics calculation. The results of these measurements are presented in table 2 below.
Table 2: Average Absorbances for Selected Wavelengths
Species Wavelength Absorbance (untreated) Sample
Standard Deviation (untreated) Absorbance (MagNascent) Sample Standard Deviation (Magnascent)
I 505 3.40 0.0021 5.35 0.22
I 606 0.36 0.001 0.53 6.7x10-9
I2 421 5.26 0.010 5.26 0.010
I2 448 5.39 0.010 5.39 0.014
I3 (linear) 571 0.70 1.3x10-8 1.04 0
I3 (linear) 591 0.48 0.001 0.71 0.001
I3 (bent) 534 1.58 4.1x10-4 2.23 4.1x10-4
I3 (bent) 556 0.96 0 1.39 2.7x10-8

As is evident from this table, the results were quite consistent at each wavelength, and very consistent when comparing equivalent species at the two wavelengths selected for the study.
From these averages, and using standard statistical techniques4, we could calculate the mean ratio of absorbances of the MagNascent to the untreated samples provided as well as the confidence limit for these ratios at 95%. We did this for each individual wavelength, then determined the mean and confidence limits for both wavelengths for each species. The statistics were taken as sample statistics (as opposed to population) in all cases. Because absorbance is directly proportional to concentration (equation 2, above), the ratio of the absorbances, of course, is equal to the ratio of the concentrations. Although, using this technique, we cannot determine the exact concentrations of the species in question, the ratios should tell us the relative amounts for each species. Thus, for example a ratio of 1.53 should tell us that the MagNascent concentration is 53% higher than the original or untreated concentration. The results are shown in table 3 below.
Table 3: Table of Absorbance Ratios
Species Wavelength AMagNascent/AUntreated 95% Confidence Limit
I 505 1.57 0.07
I 606 1.48 0.005
I Mean 1.53 0.07
I2 421 1.00 0.003
I2 448 1.00 0.003
I2 Mean 1.00 0.005
I3 (linear) 571 1.47 3.2x10-8
I3 (linear) 591 1.48 0.004
I3 (linear) Mean 1.48 0.004
I3 (bent) 534 1.41 0.001
I3 (bent) 556 1.44 3.2x10-8
I3 (bent) Mean 1.43 0.001


Discussion

Although spectroscopic methods may not be the ideal choice for a study such as this, the results are none the less remarkable. Two separate wavelengths were chosen for each of the four species anticipated, and in each case, the measurements of relative concentrations for each species agreed remarkably well giving credence for the study. What is more, the results agree very well with those of the previous spectroscopic study, assuming that the earlier study has mixed up the treated with untreated samples.
There is the question of why diatomic iodine concentration did not change. If we take the study by Bleil and Bleil1 to be correct, then, according to the results of this study, the concentration of nascent iodine should increase by 53%, linear triiodine should increase by 48% and bent triiodine should increase by 43%. Compared with the theoretical study, then, nascent iodine should increase from 0.11% to 0.17%, and triiodine should increase from 0.50% to 0.74%. This being the case, diatomic iodine should decrease from 1.39% to 1.09%, which is a decrease of about 22%. We would have expected the treated/untreated ratio to be roughly 0.78, but instead it remained at 1.00. This could well be because there are very few good wavelengths to choose for diatomic iodine, the only two being close to one another at 421 and 448 nm. This is near the maximum absorption in the visible wavelength spectrum, giving rise to several possibilities for its consistency, namely, that it is too near the maximum ability of the spectrometer thereby making it impossible to see a change, or there are too many additional species absorbing near these frequencies to see a difference. It is also possible that, in the original theoretical calculations, the estimated concentrations of triiodine and nascent iodine before treatment were too high. If these concentrations are actually lower in the original (untreated) iodine, then perhaps the concentration changes after the treatment would not be high enough on an absolute (rather than relative) scale to be detectable with our instrument.
The obvious follow-up study would be kinetics, which is currently underway. One would expect that, in time, the species created by the magnetic treatment of the iodine would approach the untreated concentrations. Thus, a kinetics study would demonstrate that there is a significant difference between elemental and MagNascent iodine. Such a study will also address the possibility that there is a concentration difference created in the iodine concentration by the treatment process. In addition, a kinetics study should be useful in determining the shelf-life of MagNascent iodine.

References

1 Richard Bleil and Sarah Bleil, “On the Nature of Elemental Iodine”, MagNascent Internal Report (July 2, 2010).

2 See, for example, John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel and John R. Townsend, Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, 7nd edition, page 270 (Brooks/Cole Publishing, Belmont, CA 2010).

3 See, for example, John M. Clark, Jr. and Robert L. Switzer, Experimental Biochemistry, 2nd Ed., p. 6 (Freeman Press, New York, NY 1977).

4 See, for example, Douglas A. Skoog, Donald M. West and F. James Holler, Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, 7th Ed., p. 47ff (Brooks/Cole Publishing, Belmont, CA 1996).

5 Private communication.