Arrhenius equation and rate of change

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the rate constant (k) and activation energy (EA) in relation to temperature changes. Initially, the participant attempted to derive how the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature (dk/dT) varies with activation energy using differential calculus. They concluded that as activation energy increases (given EA > RT), the rate constant becomes less sensitive to temperature changes. However, this conclusion conflicted with established knowledge that a higher activation energy typically results in a greater increase in the rate constant for a given temperature rise.Upon realizing a mistake in their differentiation process, they corrected the expression for dk/dT and acknowledged that the correct differential indicates that for very low activation energies (EA < RT), the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature does indeed increase with higher activation energy. This highlights a nuanced understanding of the relationship between activation energy and temperature effects on reaction rates, suggesting that the behavior may differ significantly at low activation energy compared to higher values.
Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1
I wanted to see how the rate of change of rate constant with temperature (dk/dT) changes with activation energy. I tried to do this with differentials: k=A*e-EA/RT so

\frac{dk}{dT} = \frac{A E_A \cdot e^{-\frac{E_A}{RT}} } {RT^2}

and then

\frac{d(\frac{dk}{dT})}{dE_A} = A \cdot e^{-\frac{E_A}{RT}} \cdot (\frac{1}{RT^2} - \frac{1}{R^2T^3})

So long as EA>RT, it appears that rate of change of rate constant with temperature would decrease for increasing activation energy (i.e. if you increase activation energy, then the rate constant is less susceptible to increasing when you change the temperature). EA>RT would be almost universally the case I imagine - at 298 K that's less than 2.5 kJ/mol.

But this doesn't tally up with what we know, which is that for a given temperature increase, a greater activation energy leads to a greater increase in rate constant. e.g. if we write well-known

k2/k1 = exp( -EA/R * (1/T22 - 1/T12) )

and try some values we get this conclusion. So what went wrong or what is wrong with my idea to do it by differentiation?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Big-Daddy said:
k2/k1 = exp( -EA/R * (1/T22 - 1/T12) )

Oops I made a stupid mistake here. Sorry if this was confusing people. It should be

k2/k1 = exp( EA/R * (1/T1 - 1/T2) )

No squared terms.
 
Big-Daddy said:
I wanted to see how the rate of change of rate constant with temperature (dk/dT) changes with activation energy. I tried to do this with differentials: k=A*e-EA/RT so

\frac{dk}{dT} = \frac{A E_A \cdot e^{-\frac{E_A}{RT}} } {RT^2}

and then

\frac{d(\frac{dk}{dT})}{dE_A} = A \cdot e^{-\frac{E_A}{RT}} \cdot (\frac{1}{RT^2} - \frac{1}{R^2T^3})

So long as EA>RT, it appears that rate of change of rate constant with temperature would decrease for increasing activation energy (i.e. if you increase activation energy, then the rate constant is less susceptible to increasing when you change the temperature). EA>RT would be almost universally the case I imagine - at 298 K that's less than 2.5 kJ/mol.

But this doesn't tally up with what we know, which is that for a given temperature increase, a greater activation energy leads to a greater increase in rate constant. e.g. if we write well-known

k2/k1 = exp( -EA/R * (1/T22 - 1/T12) )

and try some values we get this conclusion. So what went wrong or what is wrong with my idea to do it by differentiation?
You differentiated with respect to EA incorrectly. Try again. The two terms in parenthesis do not have consistent units.
 
Chestermiller said:
You differentiated with respect to EA incorrectly. Try again. The two terms in parenthesis do not have consistent units.

Thanks, I had indeed made this mistake - the actual differential should be

\frac{d(\frac{dk}{dT})}{d(E_A)} = \frac{A}{RT^2} \cdot e^{-\frac{E_A}{RT}} \cdot (1 - \frac{E_A}{RT})

But it seems that my original conclusion still holds true - that EA < RT (incredibly small activation energy) is necessary for rate of change of rate constant with temperature to increase at a higher activation energy, which however is the trend which the expression for k2/k1 indicates is true for all EA (it seems to me)?
 
I want to test a humidity sensor with one or more saturated salt solutions. The table salt that I have on hand contains one of two anticaking agents, calcium silicate or sodium aluminosilicate. Will the presence of either of these additives (or iodine for that matter) significantly affect the equilibrium humidity? I searched and all the how-to-do-it guides did not address this question. One research paper I found reported that at 1.5% w/w calcium silicate increased the deliquescent point by...
Back
Top