Understanding Osmotic Pressure: Equation and Explanation

  • Thread starter Thread starter john16O
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pressure
AI Thread Summary
Osmotic pressure is related to the effect of solutes on water movement across a semi-permeable membrane, similar to hydrostatic pressure. The van't Hoff equation, π = nRT, describes this relationship, where π represents osmotic pressure, n is the number of moles of solute, R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature. The discussion explains the chemical potential of water and how it relates to osmotic pressure through the equilibrium of two compartments with different solute concentrations. The equation incorporates variables such as the mole fraction of water and hydrostatic pressure. Overall, the exchange of information clarified the concept of osmotic pressure and its mathematical representation.
john16O
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
can anyone explain osmotic pressure along with its equation because I am having a hard time with this concept. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Osmotic pressure is a way of thinking about the effect of solutes. It's not much different from hydrostatic pressure- given a semi-permeable membrane, one can interchange one for the other, and compensate for one gradient with another.

As it happens, I'm currently working through "Water Movement Through Lipid Bilayers, Pores, and Plasma Membranes" by Alan Finkelstein (1987).

What equation are you referring to?
 
(pie)=nRT --> van't Hoff equation
 
Oh, ok. Here goes... hoping my tex skills are up to the challenge:

First, let's start by writing down the chemical potential of water: this is the amount of energy required to add a molecule (or a mole) of water to a solution:

\mu_{W} =\mu^{(0)}_{W} + RT ln X_{W} + P\overline{V_{W}}

Where \mu^{(0)}_{W} is the chemical potential defined at STP, X_{W} the mole fraction of water, \overline{V_{W}} the partial molar volume, R the gas constant, P the hydrostatic pressure, T the temperature.

If we have two compartments separated by a water-permeable membrane, such that one has solute and the other does not, both compartments are at internal equilbrium, then \mu(1)_{W} = \mu(2)_{W}. Substituting that big expression about for \mu_{W}, with the knowledge that X_W(2) is 1 (pure water) and that a hydrostatic pressure difference must exist to oppose the flow of water across the membrane, we get

\Pi\equiv[P(1) - P(2)] = -\frac{RT}{\overline{V_{W}}} lnX_{W}(1)

Now, for a dilute solution ln(X) = X, and doing a few other manipulations of X into n you end up with the van't Hoff expression.

How's that?

Edit: oops, made an error in tex formatting.
 
Last edited:
wow!, thank you so much, you have defiantly cleared it up for me. thank you again!
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top