Can I use Le Châtelier's Principle to prove Henry's Law?

In summary: Also, the K_{sp} is not a unitless quantity. Its units are not expressed, simply because they depend on the reaction, but for a particular reaction, they have units. It is meaningless to write them out, since we are concerned only with the concentrations/pressures.
  • #1
Bipolarity
776
2
So suppose you have ammonia gas suspended above a column of water. Because both ammonia and water are polar, some of the ammonia will immediately dissolve into the water, forming a solubility equilibrium.

[tex] NH_{3}(g) \rightleftharpoons NH_{3}(aq) [/tex]

Henry's Law states that:
[tex] S_{g}=kP_{g}[/tex]

However, if I use the equilibrium constant expression, I get:

[tex] K_{sp} = \frac{RT[NH_{3}(aq)]}{P_{NH_{3}(g)}} [/tex]

According to this expression, if I increase the pressure by a factor of λ (or decrease the volume by λ), then Q will decrease by λ, so equilibrium will shift to favor the production of aqueous ammonia, however I am not so sure that this will be proportionate to the pressure increase. I see a necessary contradiction between Henry's Law and Le Châtelier's Principle.

OF course I have probably made some type of mistake, but I can't find it... I would appreciate any help.

THanks!

BiP
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ignoring other things I don't understand in your post, both equations state exactly the same - ratio of pressure and concentration equals some constant.
 
  • #3
Borek said:
Ignoring other things I don't understand in your post, both equations state exactly the same - ratio of pressure and concentration equals some constant.

Ah I see it now thanks! I was confusing myself needlessly.

BiP
 
  • #4
There seems to be something fishy going on here, [itex]k_{H}[/itex] and [itex]K_{sp}[/itex] do not have the same units, to begin with.
 
  • #5
mjpam said:
There seems to be something fishy going on here, [itex]k_{H}[/itex] and [itex]K_{sp}[/itex] do not have the same units, to begin with.

It shouldn't matter what their units are. As long as they are constants, everything is fine. In fact, via a little substitution, it is clear that [tex] K_{sp} = kRT [/tex]

I was confused myself at first, but it seems crystal clear now.

BiP
 
  • #6
Bipolarity said:
It shouldn't matter what their units are. As long as they are constants, everything is fine. In fact, via a little substitution, it is clear that [tex] K_{sp} = kRT [/tex]

I was confused myself at first, but it seems crystal clear now.

BiP

It does matter what the units are, because it is meaningless to equate two values the units of which are different.
 
  • #7
mjpam said:
It does matter what the units are, because it is meaningless to equate two values the units of which are different.

When did we equate them? We simply proved that the ratio of aqueous ammonia and gaseous ammonia is some constant, as Borek correctly pointed out.

BiP
 
  • #8
Bipolarity said:
When did we equate them? We simply proved that the ratio of aqueous ammonia and gaseous ammonia is some constant, as Borek correctly pointed out.

BiP

Must have been this:

Borek said:
Ignoring other things I don't understand in your post, both equations state exactly the same - ratio of pressure and concentration equals some constant.

The equilibrium coefficient is a dimensionless quantity, whereas the Henry's Law constant has dimensions of pressure over concentration.
 
  • #9
mjpam said:
Must have been this:



The equilibrium coefficient is a dimensionless quantity, whereas the Henry's Law constant has dimensions of pressure over concentration.

I don't see your point. The units is completely irrelevant to this thread. All that matters is that Henry's Law is correctly predicted by Le Châtelier's Principle. Besides, my question has already been resolved.


BiP
 
  • #10
Bipolarity said:
I don't see your point. The units is completely irrelevant to this thread. All that matters is that Henry's Law is correctly predicted by Le Châtelier's Principle. Besides, my question has already been resolved.


BiP

The equation equating the equilibrium coefficient [itex]K_{sp}[/itex]and the Henry's Law constant [itex]k_{H}[/itex] is incorrect. The right-hand side and the left-hand side do not have units.
 
  • #11
mjpam said:
The equation equating the equilibrium coefficient [itex]K_{sp}[/itex]and the Henry's Law constant [itex]k_{H}[/itex] is incorrect. The right-hand side and the left-hand side do not have units.

I never made any equation equating the two things...
 
  • #12
Bipolarity said:
I never made any equation equating the two things...

What's this then?

Bipolarity said:
It shouldn't matter what their units are. As long as they are constants, everything is fine. In fact, via a little substitution, it is clear that [tex] K_{sp} = kRT [/tex]

I was confused myself at first, but it seems crystal clear now.

BiP
 
  • #13
mjpam said:
What's this then?

This was not from my original post. I assumed you have a problem with the equations in my original post, because if you did not, you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

In In any case, you can derive this easily from the two equations in my original post. I do not see why you are making a fuss of this, as Borek cleared it all up in one sentence.

Also, the [itex]K_{sp}[/itex] is not a unitless quantity. Its units are not expressed, simply because they depend on the reaction, but for a particular reaction, they have units. It is meaningless to write them out, since we are concerned only with the concentrations/pressures. In this case, the units are consistent with [itex]kRT[/itex], but again, the units are irrelevant! That is the beauty of equilibrium constants.

BiP
 
  • #14
Bipolarity said:
This was not from my original post. I assumed you have a problem with the equations in my original post, because if you did not, you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

In In any case, you can derive this easily from the two equations in my original post. I do not see why you are making a fuss of this, as Borek cleared it all up in one sentence.

Also, the [itex]K_{sp}[/itex] is not a unitless quantity. Its units are not expressed, simply because they depend on the reaction, but for a particular reaction, they have units. It is meaningless to write them out, since we are concerned only with the concentrations/pressures. In this case, the units are consistent with [itex]kRT[/itex], but again, the units are irrelevant! That is the beauty of equilibrium constants.

BiP

The units are not irrelevant. If you are going to equate an expression with an equilibrium constant it has to be unitless or the equation is meaningless. Also, [itex]K_{sp}[/itex] is unitless, the units of the various pressures or concentration are standardized against some standard pressure or concentration, usually 1 M or 1 atm.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I told you there were things in your post I didn't understand.

Units of equilibrium constant are tricky. In thermodynamics K is unitless, as it is defined with unitless activities. But we often ignore activity coefficients and use concentrations or pressures in K, then it has units.
 
  • #16
Borek said:
I told you there were things in your post I didn't understand.

Units of equilibrium constant are tricky. In thermodynamics K is unitless, as it is defined with unitless activities. But we often ignore activity coefficients and use concentrations or pressures in K, then it has units.

Hmm, if that is true, then my equation relating the two may be incorrect. It doesn't change anything though.

BiP
 
  • #17
Actually, equilibrium constants are always unitless, regardless of whether one uses activities, concentrations, or pressures to calculate them. The units of concentration or pressure are, in a sense, "suppressed" because all thermodynamic calculations are done with reference to a standard state, which has the same units as the quantities used and divide each of the quantities in the equation.

Most general chemistry textbooks (or at least the ones I used in high school and college) don't mention the unit "suppression" and tend the gloss over the whole topic of the units of the equilibrium constant, but the mathematics used in thermodynamics strongly implies the equilibrium constant is unitless, as it is often the argument of logarithms or set equal to unitless quantities.
 
  • #18
mjpam said:
Actually, equilibrium constants are always unitless, regardless of whether one uses activities, concentrations, or pressures to calculate them. The units of concentration or pressure are, in a sense, "suppressed" because all thermodynamic calculations are done with reference to a standard state, which has the same units as the quantities used and divide each of the quantities in the equation.

Most general chemistry textbooks (or at least the ones I used in high school and college) don't mention the unit "suppression" and tend the gloss over the whole topic of the units of the equilibrium constant, but the mathematics used in thermodynamics strongly implies the equilibrium constant is unitless, as it is often the argument of logarithms or set equal to unitless quantities.

Ah I see, that makes sense now because my textbook too does not talk much about the units, but in the chapter on thermodynamics it uses the natural log of K and relates it to the Gibbs free energy.

But what answer does this realization offer to the title of this thread?

BiP
 
  • #19
Insofar as any possible contradiction, Henry's law is only valid for sufficiently dilute solutions. It does not apply in all cases by any means.

Not sure what else to note, except that it is a good lesson to learn early on that not all constants are created equal. :smile:
 
  • #20
Mike H said:
Insofar as any possible contradiction, Henry's law is only valid for sufficiently dilute solutions. It does not apply in all cases by any means.

Not sure what else to note, except that it is a good lesson to learn early on that not all constants are created equal. :smile:

Your post reminded my of this for some reason:

The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability--it is, finally, the concept of the game [jeu - probably better translated as "play"]. In other words, it is not the concept of something--of a center starting from which an observer could master the field--but the very concept of the game which, after all, I was trying to elaborate.

I'm just free-associating and not making a particular judgment on the content of what you actually said.
 

1. Can Le Châtelier's Principle be applied to Henry's Law?

Yes, Le Châtelier's Principle can be used to prove Henry's Law. Both principles deal with the effects of changing conditions on chemical equilibria.

2. What is Le Châtelier's Principle?

Le Châtelier's Principle states that when a system at equilibrium is subjected to a change in temperature, pressure, or concentration, the equilibrium will shift in a direction that minimizes the effect of the change.

3. What is Henry's Law?

Henry's Law states that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid.

4. How can Le Châtelier's Principle be used to prove Henry's Law?

By changing the pressure above a liquid containing a gas, the equilibrium between the gas in the liquid and the gas above it will shift in a direction that minimizes the effect of the pressure change. This shift will result in an increase or decrease in the solubility of the gas, as predicted by Henry's Law.

5. Are there any limitations to using Le Châtelier's Principle to prove Henry's Law?

Yes, Le Châtelier's Principle assumes that the system is at equilibrium both before and after the change in conditions. Additionally, it only applies to systems at constant temperature and pressure. If these conditions are not met, the results may not align with the predictions of Henry's Law.

Similar threads

  • Chemistry
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top