Chemistry How to think about increased temperature effect on water autoprotolysis equilibrium constant?

AI Thread Summary
Increased temperature leads to a higher equilibrium constant for water autoprotolysis, indicating a shift towards products, as described by the van't Hoff equation. The discussion raises questions about whether changes in water density at different temperatures affect this equilibrium constant. It is clarified that in equilibrium expressions, the solvent's concentration is typically not included as it has an activity of 1. However, the approximation may not hold in all cases, such as in mixtures where the roles of solvent and solute can blur. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity of defining activity and its implications in various chemical contexts.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
The density of liquid water decreases as the temperature increases from 25C to 50C. Will this effect cause ##K_2## to increase or decrease? Why?
Relevant Equations
I thought I knew the answer to this question until today.

Apparently not.
From the van't Hoff equation we have

$$\ln{\left ( \frac{K_p(T_1)}{K_p(T_2)} \right )}=\frac{\Delta H^\circ_{rxn}}{R}\left ( \frac{1}{T_2}-\frac{1}{T_1} \right )\tag{1}$$

So for ##T_2>T_1## we have ##K_p(T_1)<K_p(T_2)##.

which is to say that the equilibrium constant increases for the higher temperature and the reaction shifts towards products (ie ions, hydronium and hydroxide).

Does the analysis above even take into account something like the change in density of water?

Today I learned that the water autoprotolysis constant is

$$\mathrm{K_{auto}=\frac{[H_3O^+][OH^-]}{[H_2O]^2}}\tag{2}$$

and

$$\mathrm{K_w=K_{auto}[H_2O]^2=[H_3O^+][OH^-]}\tag{3}$$

Which of these constants is the one that is considered in (1)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zenterix said:
Today I learned that the water autoprotolysis constant is

$$\mathrm{K_{auto}=\frac{[H_3O^+][OH^-]}{[H_2O]^2}}\tag{2}$$
In the equilibrium expression for a solution you only need to include the concentration of solutes.
The solvent doesn't matter. It has "activity" equal to 1.
So the density change of the solvent due to temperature change has very little effect, I would say.
 
Philip Koeck said:
In the equilibrium expression for a solution you only need to include the concentration of solutes.
The solvent doesn't matter. It has "activity" equal to 1.

That's only an approximation.

Imagine equimolar mixture of water and ethanol. Which one is solvent, and which one has the activity of 1?
 
  • Like
Likes Philip Koeck
Borek said:
That's only an approximation.

Imagine equimolar mixture of water and ethanol. Which one is solvent, and which one has the activity of 1?
Good point!

I'm not sure about your example though. There's no reaction going on there, is there?
So I can mix water and ethanol at any ratio and it'll stay that way if nothing evaporates.
It won't move towards a chemical equilibrium.
Or am I missing something?

Not really my field, but I like to learn!
 
Philip Koeck said:
There's no reaction going on there, is there?

Doesn't matter - I could go for other examples of things possibly reacting (like equimolar mixture of acetic acid and ethanol), but activity in general is much more universal concept, not limited to chemical processes (and don't get me started on what is chemical reaction vs what is physical process :wink: as this classification is artificial - makes some sense when you start learning, but gets more and more blurry once you get into fine prints).
 
  • Like
Likes Philip Koeck
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top