Ivan,
> I found this to be a very curious document indeed. > Firstly, the conclusion that, "High quality colloids contain a high > percentage of silver particles [ by this the authors mean uncharged > particles of silver metal ]. Ideally, a silver colloid would contain no > ions." does not address the fact that ions are probably the active > ingredient of CS. We do not believe that the ions are the active ingredient. If cs is ingested, ionic silver will precipitate to silver chloride within seconds on reaching the stomach which contains hydrochloric acid leaving only the particles to be absorbed. If cs is nebulized and inhaled or enters the blood stream by any other method the silver ions will pick up a chloride ion and precipitate from the high level of potassium chloride present in blood serum, again leaving only the particles. Therefore, a higher percentage of particles results in more of the active ingredient. > Of course, if the object of the exercise is to produce a high quality > colloid in the literal sense of the word, then the authors may be > correct in their conclusions. However if the object is to produce a CS > which is most effective in its antiseptic action, then the conclusions > drawn are irrelevant, unless a colloid, in its literal sense, fulfils > such an outcome. > > Further... to say that a silver colloid is negatively charged, is only > true when certain conditions are met, that is, when the particles of > silver are neutral and when there is sufficient numbers of free hydroxyl > ions to be adsorbed to the surface the silver metal. Of course, as soon > as this tenuous arrangement hits gastric juices, the particle would > loose these hydroxyl ions and the silver becomes neutral bits of metal > (which they always were really). If that may be true, but the particles are still not positively charged. > The paper describes the fact, that in electrolytic CS production 75% to > 99% of the silver exists as positively charged ions, the remainder being > neutral silver metal particles. There is no mention of partially ionised > metal particles, multi-atom particles which have lost one or more > electrons. > Indeed the whole paper relies on the acceptance that silver colloids > should be particles of neutral silver atoms. No mention is made of the > fact that the Zeta potential is not strictly a measure of the particle's > charge, but of the potential across the slip plane, characterised by the > 'drag' of the particle and its attendant hydration layers with the bulk > solute, and that Zeta potential can just as easily be a positive number > as it can be a negative number, it being the distance that the ZP is > from zero which characterises a 'colloids'' stability. Not true. Solid particles dispersed in water of low ionic content will be have a negative zeta potential, not positive. I would challenge anyone to produce silver colloidal particles in DI water that have a positive zeta potential. > The authors also mention that silver ions will ionise water, ie, break > it apart into H+ and OH- components (the first time I have ever heard of > this) Coulomb force is extremely strong and will not allow a net charge to occur. It is the Coulomb force that causes the ionization. "The negative charge of the hydroxyl ions counters the positive > charge of the silver ions and maintains a solution of whose net charge > is zero." which completely ignores the positive charge of the H+ ions > which must be equal in number to the OH- hydroxyl ions from which they > split. The H+, in the form of the hydronium ion H3O+, migrates to the cathode, where it is reduced to hydrogen gas, H2 which is liberated.(page 1, para 1 under Various forms of silver) > It is laudable that the authors set out to right the problem " lay > people trying to learn about colloidal silver become confused and have a > hard time grasping the science involved..." but in my view the problem > is not lessened by this paper. Unfortunately the name 'colloidal' silver > when used to describe the common silver solution, brewed and used by > many as a germ fighter and steriliser, is describing a system which > exists at the boundary between colloids and solutions and which has not > been thoroughly studied and is not readily described by classical > colloid science. And it is not established at all in this paper, that > the classic colloid so described by them is the most desirable. > > I have written a letter to one of the authors in which I ask : I am the author. > 1. Why is the colloid of metallic silver more desirable than ionic > silver? The particles are what is desired. Ions precipitate to silver chloride and is eliminated. Less ions, less waste. > 2. Is there such a variant of silver colloid which is composed of > multiple silver atoms of which one or more have lost electrons resulting > in a positively charged particle? Doubt it. > 3. Is it not more likely that metallic ions are hydrated by successive > layers of water molecules arranged such that at the outer layer the > positive charge is effectively neutralised, rather than ionising water > to hydronium and hydroxyl ions, which would have the effect of making > the solution more acidic? No. > 4. You talk of the solubility constant of silver hydroxide in one part > of the paper and yet in another explain why silver and hydroxyl ions are > not attracted to one another. Is this not inconsistent? Not at all. The electrostatic force of attraction is diminished by the dielectric constant of water (80). (page 3, last para) frank key -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
