Standard Activity in Electrochemistry

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition and implications of standard activity in electrochemistry, specifically referencing equations from the textbook "Electrochemical Systems" by Newman and Alyea. It establishes that the chemical potential of a component can be expressed as a function of absolute activity, with key equations (1) to (8) detailing the relationships between chemical potential, activity, and molarity. The conversation highlights a common misconception regarding the definitions of molality and molarity, clarifying that while standard activity is often treated as a constant, it must be equal to 1 by definition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamic functions and chemical potential
  • Familiarity with electrochemical systems and standard states
  • Knowledge of activity coefficients and their significance in solutions
  • Basic grasp of molarity and molality concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of chemical potential in electrochemical systems
  • Explore the role of activity coefficients in non-ideal solutions
  • Investigate the differences between molarity and molality in detail
  • Learn about the implications of standard states in thermodynamics
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for chemists, electrochemists, and students studying thermodynamics, particularly those focusing on electrochemical systems and the behavior of solutions.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dario56
mjc123 said:
mi as you define it is molality, not molarity.
Yep, that's a mistake. It is clear what is meant, though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
24K