Q value with species in different states

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathewsMD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    States Value
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the setup of the reaction quotient (Q) for the half-reaction 2H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4H+(aq) + 4e-. Participants debate whether Q should be expressed solely as [H+]^4 or if the partial pressure of O2 should be included, with some suggesting that the standard pressure for gases is typically assumed to be 1 atm. There is a consensus that partial pressures can be expressed in bars rather than atm, as this has been the convention since 1982. The distinction between Q (reaction quotient) and K (equilibrium constant) is emphasized, noting that they are not always identical and serve different purposes in electrochemical contexts. The Nernst equation is mentioned as a tool for understanding these concepts, particularly in non-equilibrium situations. The conversation also touches on the challenges of finding authoritative sources for these conventions, as some participants encounter issues with IUPAC resources.
MathewsMD
Messages
430
Reaction score
7
Given the half reaction:

2H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4H+(aq) + 4e-

How would you set up the Q equation for this reactions?

Would it be Q = [H+]4 only or do we assume the partial pressure of oxygen gas is 1 atm? Is there a general way to write the Q value for species in different states?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Typically we will just express the partial pressure of the oxygen in bars and concentration in M. No problem with mixing states, as technically these are just approximations of the activity.
 
Borek said:
Typically we will just express the partial pressure of the oxygen in bars and concentration in M. No problem with mixing states, as technically these are just approximations of the activity.

Oh really? My class didn't delve too deeply into fugacity, but I was told when assigning partial pressure values in the Q equation, to ensure units were always in atm. I wasn't told exactly why, but why do you say to use bars? Do you mind referring me to a derivation or reasoning perhaps?

Also, in my class, the professor completed an example where he solved for Q but omitted the gaseous species involved since it was a half-reaction in a voltaic cell. It was not at standard conditions, though. Is it reasonable to assume the partial pressure was 1atm, though?
 
What is Q? I only see people talking about Q recently in this forum? Is there a new book which decided to use Q instead of K?
 
Q is the reaction quotient, K is the equilibrium constant. I found it is convenient to treat them separately, as they are not always identical.
 
MathewsMD said:
Oh really? My class didn't delve too deeply into fugacity, but I was told when assigning partial pressure values in the Q equation, to ensure units were always in atm. I wasn't told exactly why, but why do you say to use bars?

This is just a convention. Pressure should be in bar, since 1982. atm was an earlier standard.

Sorry, there are some problems with IUPAC servers and I can't trace it right now to any acceptable source, have it just on disk in a private discussion with people I trust.
 
Borek said:
Q is the reaction quotient, K is the equilibrium constant. I found it is convenient to treat them separately, as they are not always identical.
Ok, reaction quotient was new to me as a concept. I still don't see what it is good for. What I want to say is that the Nernst equation is derived for an electrochemical equilibrium situation, so Q=K.
 
When you mix some slowly reacting reagents Q doesn't equal K - it gets there, but slowly. Without introducing Q it is difficult to explain how come we have a solution in which... K doesn't equal K? But you can easily say Q doesn't equal K and the situation is clear.
 
Borek said:
This is just a convention. Pressure should be in bar, since 1982. atm was an earlier standard.

Sorry, there are some problems with IUPAC servers and I can't trace it right now to any acceptable source, have it just on disk in a private discussion with people I trust.

Okay, thanks for the help. If you ever do find the source you could link me to, that would be great!
 
Back
Top