Melting/freezing point depression of water vs. other liquids

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Gibbs-Thomson equation for freezing/melting point depression in confined liquids, specifically water. The author explores the implications of the Young-Laplace equation and the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, noting that for water, the volume change during freezing is negative, which complicates the expected temperature behavior. The author questions why confined water does not melt at temperatures above 0 degrees despite this negative volume change, suggesting that the surface tension of the ice-water interface may be negative, counteracting the effect. It is clarified that the Clausius-Clapeyron equation's assumptions can lead to discrepancies in this context, especially when considering volume changes. The discussion emphasizes the need for a corrected approach when applying these thermodynamic principles to phase transitions in confined spaces.
sir_manning
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hey

I'm trying to derive the Gibbs-Thomson equation for the freezing/melting point depression of liquids inside a confined space, such as a cylindrical pore. This has been observed for many liquids, such as water, benzene, heptane, etc. Basically my question is, why does water, which expands in volume when frozen, also has its freezing point reduced in pores?

Here's a more detailed account of my confusion. The Young-Laplace equation for the pressure drop ΔP across a hemispherical interface with radius r reads
\Delta P = \frac{2 \gamma}{r},
with \gamma as the surface tension of the interface. For a liquid meniscus, this is the surface tension of the liquid-vapour interface, but for an ice-water interface, this is the surface tension of the solid-liquid interface.

So far so good. Now, to get the Gibbs-Thomson equation, the 'ol Clausius-Clapeyron relation is whipped out:
\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta T} \approx \frac{dP}{dT} = \frac{L_T}{\Delta V}\frac{1}{T},
with L_T as the total latent heat of transformation. For a phase transition from ice to water, \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta T} is negative because \Delta V is negative, unlike most liquids where \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta T} is positive.

Anyway, to get the Gibbs-Thomson equation, this is plugged into the Young-Lapace equation above for \Delta P, giving
T(r=\infty) - T(r) = \Delta T = \frac{2 \gamma \Delta V T}{L_T r}.

So since \Delta V is negative for water, why isn't \Delta T negative as well, causing confined water to melt at a temperature higher than 0 degrees? I'm guessing that \gamma is negative, which in this case is the surface tension of the ice-water interface, where for other liquids in contact with their frozen phase, it's positive. This would cancel out the negative from the \Delta V.

Thanks for any input.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I know where I've gone wrong, just in case someone comes across this post in the future.

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation only applies in the case of a flat boundary between two phases. In the macroscopic world, the discrepancy is so small it can be ignored. However, when deriving the Gibbs-Thomson equation with the corrected version of the CC equation, there is assumed to be no volume change, so \Delta V \rightarrow V. This paper was pretty useful.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top