Gibbs Energy and Equilibrium Constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship ΔG = -RT ln(Keq) is a fundamental equation in thermodynamics that connects the change in Gibbs energy (ΔG) to the equilibrium constant (Keq) of a reaction. This equation is derived from the principles of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, specifically for ideal gases. The derivation involves integrating the Gibbs free energy change under isothermal conditions, leading to the conclusion that at equilibrium, ΔG equals zero, simplifying the equation to ΔG° = -RT ln(Keq). The historical context of this equation includes its rigorous derivation for ideal gases, although its origins in thermodynamics are also significant.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gibbs free energy and its significance in chemical reactions.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of equilibrium constants (Keq) and reaction quotients (q).
  • Knowledge of statistical mechanics and its application to thermodynamic equations.
  • Basic principles of thermodynamics, particularly the laws governing ideal gases.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Gibbs free energy equation from statistical mechanics.
  • Explore the relationship between Gibbs free energy and equilibrium constants in various chemical systems.
  • Investigate the historical development of thermodynamic equations and their applications in chemistry.
  • Learn about the behavior of ideal solutions and how concentration affects Gibbs free energy.
USEFUL FOR

Chemists, chemical engineers, and students studying thermodynamics and chemical kinetics will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the foundational principles of Gibbs energy and equilibrium constants.

BioPhysicDino
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The relation, ΔG = -RT ln(Keq)
is ubiquitous.

It says that for a reaction, the change in Gibbs energy is proportional to the logarithm of the equilibrium constant.

But where does this come from?
I've been reading through many books and haven't yet find any that derive or indicate the history of this equation. Does anyone know?

Is this simply an empirical result? Is it derivable other than from statistical mechanics? I've found a couple places where this can be derived from statistical mechanical postulates, but is that the only way? Is that where this relation originally comes from? (I thought it was originally based in thermodynamics; am I wrong about that?)

Does anyone know the history of this equation? Who first wrote it down? In what publication?

If you can shed some light in where this relationship originally came from I would much appreciate it. Thank you. --Dino
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I'm pretty sure it was rigorously derived for ideal gases. Pardon my rambling while I try to remember what I can...
dU=dq+dw=TdS-pdV
G=U-TS+PV,
so dG= VdP-SdT
Since V=nRT/P, this gives dG=nRT d(ln P) - S dt
Dividing by n to get molar quantities,

dG=RT d(ln P)-S dT

For a constant-temperature process we can drop that last term.
so for a single component, we can integrate both sides to get the change in ΔG when we expand or compress a gas isothermally:

G_{actual}-G_{standard state}=RT ln{{P}\over{P_{standard}}}

Now combine that for all products and reactants in a reaction, and set standard pressure equal to 1 atm and you'll get

\Delta G_{actual}-\Delta G_{standard state}=RT ln{q}

Since the actual ΔG at equilibrium is zero (otherwise it wouldn't be at equilibrium), and q=K_{eq} at equilibrium this simplifies to

-\Delta G_{standard state}=RT ln{K_{eq}}

or the more famous

\Delta G_{standard state}=-RT ln{K_{eq}

Ideal solutions should behave similarly (replacing pressure with concentration, although I couldn't derive it at the moment).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K