Paper detail

Subdiffusion--reaction process with $A\longrightarrow B$ reactions versus subdiffusion--reaction process with $A+B\longrightarrow B$ reactions

We consider the subdiffusion-reaction process with reactions of a type A+B\arrow B (in which particles A are assumed to be mobile whereas B - static) in comparison to the subdiffusion-reaction process with A\rightarrow B reactions which was studied by I.M. Sokolov et al. in Phys. Rev. E 73, 031102 (2006). In both processes a rule that reactions can only occur between particles which continue to exist is taken into account. Although in both processes a probability of the vanishing of particle A due to a reaction is independent of both time and space variables (assuming that in the system with the A+B\arrow B reactions, particles B are distributed homogeneously) we show that subdiffusion-reaction equations describing these processes as well as their Greens' functions are qualitatively different. For the subdiffusion process with the A+B\arrow B reactions we consider three models. We base the method considered in this paper on a random walk model in a system with both discrete time and space variables. Then, the system with discrete variables is transformed into a system with continuous variables. Such a method seems to be convenient in analysing subdiffusion-reaction processes with partially absorbing or partially reflecting walls. The reason is that within this method we can determine Greens' functions without a necessity of solving a fractional differential subdiffusion-reaction equation with boundary conditions at the walls. As an example we use the model to find the Greens' functions for a subdiffusive-reaction system (with the reactions mentioned above), which is bounded by a partially absorbing wall. This example shows how the model can be used to analyze the subdiffusion-reaction process in a system with partially absorbing or reflecting thin membranes. Employing a simple phenomenological model, we derive equations related to the reaction parameters used in the considered models.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.