Arrhenius equation and rate of change

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the rate constant and temperature as described by the Arrhenius equation, specifically examining how the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature (dk/dT) varies with activation energy (EA). Participants explore the implications of their mathematical derivations and the consistency of their findings with established knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a differential approach to analyze how dk/dT changes with EA, suggesting that an increase in activation energy leads to a decrease in the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature, under the condition that EA > RT.
  • Another participant corrects a mistake in the formulation of the ratio of rate constants (k2/k1), indicating that the correct expression involves EA/R multiplied by the difference in the inverse temperatures.
  • A participant acknowledges an error in their differentiation with respect to EA and provides a revised expression, yet maintains that their original conclusion regarding the relationship between EA and dk/dT still holds.
  • There is a suggestion that for very small activation energies (EA < RT), the rate of change of the rate constant with temperature increases with higher activation energy, which seems to contradict the earlier findings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of their mathematical findings, with some asserting that their conclusions about the relationship between activation energy and the rate of change of the rate constant are consistent with established knowledge, while others challenge the correctness of the differentiation and the resulting interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these mathematical relationships.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their mathematical derivations, including unit consistency and the assumptions made regarding activation energy and temperature. The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationships involved without reaching a consensus.

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
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K