Gibbs Energy and Equilibrium Constant

AI Thread Summary
The equation ΔG = -RT ln(Keq) describes the relationship between the change in Gibbs energy (ΔG) and the equilibrium constant (Keq) for a chemical reaction. This relationship indicates that the change in Gibbs energy is proportional to the logarithm of the equilibrium constant. The origins of this equation are discussed, with references to its derivation from statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. It is noted that the equation was rigorously derived for ideal gases, using fundamental thermodynamic principles such as the first law of thermodynamics and the definitions of Gibbs energy. The derivation involves integrating changes in Gibbs energy with respect to pressure and temperature, ultimately leading to the relationship between standard Gibbs energy and the equilibrium constant. The discussion also touches on the applicability of this equation to ideal solutions, suggesting that similar principles apply when replacing pressure with concentration. However, the historical context and original publication of the equation remain unclear, with a call for more information on its historical development.
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:
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top