Standard Activity in Electrochemistry

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the definition and implications of chemical potential in electrochemistry, particularly in relation to activity and standard states. It highlights the relationship between chemical potential, absolute activity, and activity coefficients, emphasizing how these concepts apply to mixtures, especially electrolyte solutions. The standard state for components is typically defined as pure substances at the system's temperature and pressure, allowing for the expression of chemical potential in terms of activity. A key point raised is the confusion regarding the standard activity being equal to 1, which is debated in the context of its dependence on temperature, pressure, and solute type. The conversation concludes with a correction regarding the terminology used for molality versus molarity in the equations presented.
Dario56
Messages
289
Reaction score
48
In the textbook Electrochemical Systems by Newman and Alyea, chapter 14: The definition of some thermodynamic functions, chemical potential of component (ionic or neutral) is written as a function of absolute activity: $$ \mu_i = RTln(\lambda_i) \tag {1} $$

where ##\lambda_i## is the absolute activity of the component ##i##.

What I know from thermodynamics is the following: $$ \mu_i = \mu_i ^⦵ + RTln \frac { f_i}{f_i ^⦵} = \mu_i ^⦵ + RT ln\frac {a_i}{a_i ^⦵} \tag{2}$$

where ##f_i## and ##f_i^⦵$## are partial and standard fugacities of component, respectively. It is important to note that ##a_i = \frac {f_i}{f_i^⦵}## and ##a_i ^⦵ = 1##.

Since we don't know the values of chemical potential, we can express them relatively to the standard state if we take that chemical potential at standard state is equal to zero: $$ \mu_i = RTln(a_i) = RTln(\lambda_i)\tag {3} $$

This is all well and good.

For mixtures in general (solutions of electrolytes are mixtures), standard state of the component is usually taken as a state of pure component at the temperature and pressure of the system (pure liquid for solvent or pure solid for solute). Choice of such standard state allows us to express chemical potential of the component in a mixture as a function of activity in a familiar way: $$ \mu_i = \mu_i ^⦵ + RT ln (x_i \gamma_i) \tag {4}$$

where ##\gamma_i## is the activity coefficient of the component ##i##. It is also evident that ##a_i = x_i \gamma_i##.

If solution is diluted than mole fractions are directly proportional to the molarity of the component ##m_i## (##m_i = \frac {x_i}{M(Solvent)})##

This allows us to express equation 5 in terms of molarity: $$\mu_i = \mu_i ^⦵ + RTln(m_i\gamma_i M(solvent)) \tag{5} $$

Standard state chemical potential is now redefined as we add ##RTln(M(solvent))## to its previous value and refers to the state of ideal solution with unit molarity: $$ \mu_i = \mu_i^{⦵'} + RTln(m_i \gamma_i) \tag{6} $$

Comparing with equation 2 we can write: $$ \frac {a_i}{a_i ^⦵} = \frac {\lambda_i}{\lambda_i ^⦵} = m_i \gamma_i \tag{7} $$

Next equation is written: $$ \lambda_i = m_i\gamma_i \lambda_i ^⦵ \tag {8} $$

In the textbook, it is explained that standard activity ##\lambda_i ^⦵## is a proportionality constant independent of composition and electrical state, but dependent on temperature, pressure and solute type. However, by definition of activity this value should always be equal to 1 and thus independent on any variable. Standard fugacity doesn't need to be equal to 1, but activity must be since ##\lambda_i ^⦵ = \frac {f_i^⦵}{f_i ^⦵}##, as far as my knowledge of thermodynamics goes.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
mi as you define it is molality, not molarity.
 
mjc123 said:
mi as you define it is molality, not molarity.
Yep, that's a mistake. It is clear what is meant, though.
 
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