Arrhenius equation and rate of change

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the relationship between the rate constant (k) and activation energy (EA) as temperature changes, specifically analyzing the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature (dk/dT). The user initially derived the expression for dk/dT using the Arrhenius equation, k = A * e^(-EA/RT), and concluded that an increase in EA results in a decreased susceptibility of k to temperature changes. However, upon further examination, they corrected their differentiation and acknowledged that for EA < RT, the rate of change of k with temperature increases, aligning with the established relationship k2/k1 = exp(EA/R * (1/T1 - 1/T2)).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Arrhenius equation and its components (A, EA, R, T).
  • Familiarity with differential calculus and its application in chemical kinetics.
  • Knowledge of the concept of activation energy and its significance in reaction rates.
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate exponential functions in the context of physical chemistry.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of the Arrhenius equation in detail.
  • Learn about the significance of activation energy in various chemical reactions.
  • Explore advanced topics in chemical kinetics, including temperature dependence of reaction rates.
  • Investigate the role of differential calculus in analyzing reaction mechanisms and rate laws.
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, chemical engineers, and researchers in physical chemistry who are interested in the mathematical modeling of reaction rates and the effects of temperature and activation energy on chemical kinetics.

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)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K