Nernst equation and equilibrium constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the relationship between the Nernst equation, Gibbs free energy (ΔG), standard Gibbs free energy (ΔG°), and the equilibrium constant (K) in electrochemical systems. Participants explore the conditions under which these relationships hold true, particularly at unity activities and equilibrium.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that ΔG° cannot be equated to -R*T*ln(K) because ΔG° is defined at unity activity (Q=1), while K is generally not equal to 1, indicating a misunderstanding of equilibrium conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that while ΔG=0 at equilibrium, one can infer K from ΔG° measured under non-equilibrium conditions where Q=1.
  • There is a clarification that ΔG° is a constant value for a specific equilibrium under defined thermodynamic conditions, which can be used to derive K.
  • Concerns are raised about the conditions under which ΔG° is derived, particularly regarding the activities of species and their relation to Q and K.
  • Some participants note that Q=1 does not necessarily imply equilibrium, and thus ΔG=0 may not coincide with Q=1 unless K=1.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of unity activity and equilibrium conditions. There is no consensus on whether ΔG° can be directly related to K under all circumstances, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence of ΔG° on the specific conditions of the electrochemical system, including the direction of reactions and the activities of species involved. There are unresolved questions about the implications of these conditions on the relationships between ΔG, ΔG°, and K.

Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1
The equation ΔG=-nFEcell, I understand.

I also understand that, at unity activities of all species, Q=1 so R*T*ln(Q)=R*T*ln(1)=0. And therefore Ecell=E°cell and ΔG=ΔG°.

However, surely we cannot then write that ΔG°=-nFE°cell=-R*T*ln(K), since ΔG° is measured at unity activity when Q=1, rather than at K? In other words, ΔG°=-nFE°cell requires that the species be at unity activity (i.e. Q=1) so that it can come from ΔG=-nFEcell. But surely if Q=1 and K≠Q (if K does equal Q then, as we discussed some time ago, nothing is measured because equilibrium has already been reached!), we cannot write ΔG=0, so we cannot write ΔG°=-R*T*ln(K). So we should not be able to make the connection -R*T*ln(K)=-nFE°cell as far as I can see, because ΔG°=-nFE°cell is only true when Q=1 and ΔG°=-R*T*ln(K) is only true when Q=K and thus ΔG=0, and we in general assume that K≠1 (so that we are not at equilibrium to start with, meaning there is some spontaneous reaction that enables us to measure potential).

Separately: do the redox equilibria have the same standard electrode potential regardless of the direction (i.e. whether the forward reaction is the reduction or oxidation)? If not then I guess ΔG=-nFEcell must refer in particular to the equilibrium where the electrons are in the reactants of the forward reaction, since ΔG does depend on direction; if Ecell and E°cell do depend on the direction then of course this is fine.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
You must be careful about the interpretation: When the system is in equilibrium, i.e. all activities fulfill the mass action law with K, then Delta G=0 and the electrochemical cell will not show any voltage. However you can infer the value of the equilibrium constant from the voltage in a non-equilibrium situation where all activities are 1, as
\Delta G=\Delta G^0-RT \ln K. Once you know \Delta G^0 from a measurement where all activities are 1, you can calculate the value of K where Delta G=0.
 
True. Thanks for this point. ΔG° is a constant value for a certain equilibrium under a certain set of thermodynamic conditions. Thus we can use it to go back to the equilibrium constant as you say.

Can you help on this thread? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=697677
 
Big-Daddy said:
True. Thanks for this point. ΔG° is a constant value for a certain equilibrium under a certain set of thermodynamic conditions. Thus we can use it to go back to the equilibrium constant as you say.

Can you help on this thread? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=697677

It was my understanding that the constant value of ΔG° = ΔG°f products - ΔG°f reactants in standard states.
So in the quote above where ΔG° is a constant value. What are the certain set of thermodynamic
conditions and certain equilibrium that ΔG° is derived from ?
And also if at equilibrium ΔG = 0 when Q = K = 1
ΔG = ΔG°+RT ln Q then ΔG° = -RT lnK. It looks like ΔG = ΔG° = 0
 
morrobay said:
What are the certain set of thermodynamic
conditions and certain equilibrium that ΔG° is derived from ?

In this case, it is derived from the measurement of E°(cell), which is identical to the measurement of E(cell), which we can actually measure, when all the species involved in the formal cell reaction for the electrode pair are at unity activity or fugacity meaning that Q=1 meaning that ±R*T*ln(Q)=0. E°(cell) can also be calculated from the standard electrode potentials (E°(cell)=E°(Right Electrode)-E°(Left Electrode) when it is written down; thus E°(cell) is dependent on which electrode you write on the right and which you write on the left).

morrobay said:
And also if at equilibrium ΔG = 0 when Q = K = 1

Unusual. Equilibrium's condition is ΔG = 0. Q=1's condition is that the activities and fugacities of all species are at unity. It's not likely that Q=1 coincides with equilibrium. But I'll bite:

morrobay said:
ΔG = ΔG°+RT ln Q then ΔG° = -RT lnK. It looks like ΔG = ΔG° = 0

Of course. Q=1 automatically sets ΔG=ΔG°, as RTln(1) will just be 0. Since you've chosen to be at equilibrium at the same time as Q=1 (which, yes, means that K=1 as well) then ΔG=0 so of course ΔG°=0 as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K