Surfactant adsorption chemical equilibrium

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the chemical equilibrium of surfactant adsorption, specifically analyzing a dilute solution of surfactants modeled as an ideal gas in three dimensions and their behavior at the surface. The problem involves deriving the chemical potential and understanding the concentration of surfactants at the surface in relation to their concentration in the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the derivation of the chemical potential and the implications of energy differences when surfactants migrate to the surface. Questions arise regarding the interpretation of Helmholtz free energy and the conditions under which surfactants flow from the solution to the surface.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications on the derivation steps and the implications of sign conventions in the equations. There is recognition of a potential misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the concentrations of surfactants in different states and the energy differences affecting their distribution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of sign conventions in the calculations and the implications of these conventions on the expected behavior of surfactant concentrations as energy parameters change.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553

Homework Statement



A dilute solution of surfactants can be regarded as an ideal three-dimensional gas. As surfactant molecules can reduce their energy by contact with air, a fraction of them migrate to the surface where they can be treated as a two-dimensional ideal gas. Surfactants are similarly adsorbed by other porous media such as polymers and gels with an affinity for them.

(a) Consider an ideal gas of classical particles of mass ##m## in ##d## dimensions, moving in a uniform attractive potential ##\epsilon_d## in equilibrium with a thermal bath of temperature ##T##. Show that the chemical potential with particle density ##n_d## is given by ##\mu_d = -\epsilon_d + k_B T \ln (n_d \lambda^d)## where ##\lambda = \frac{h}{\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}}## is the thermal wavelength.

(b) If a surfactant lowers its energy by ##\epsilon_0## in moving from the solution it is into the surface of the solution, calculate the concentration of floating surfactants at the surface as a function of the solution concentration ##n = n_3## at temperature ##T##.

The Attempt at a Solution



I calculated (a) using the canonical ensemble so that ##Z = \frac{V^N}{h^{3N}N!}e^{\beta \epsilon_d}\int \Pi _{i = 1}^N d^d p_i e^{-\beta \sum_j p_j^2/2m} = \frac{2\pi V^N}{h^{3N}N!}\frac{(2mE)^{(Nd -1)/2}}{(Nd/2 - 1)!}e^{\beta \epsilon_d} = \frac{V^N}{\lambda^{Nd}N!}\epsilon^{\beta \epsilon_d}## where ##V## is the volume in ##d## dimensions that a single particle moves in. Then ##F = -k_B T \ln Z = Nk_B T \ln n_d \lambda^d - N\epsilon_d - Nk_B T ## where ##n_d = \frac{N}{V}##. Hence ##\mu_d = \frac{\partial F}{\partial N}|_{T,V} = -\epsilon_d + k_B T \ln n_d \lambda^d##.

My problem is with (b). Let ##\epsilon_0 \equiv \epsilon_3 - \epsilon_2##. Now in the canonical ensemble, the system doesn't exchange particles with the thermal bath but subsystems of the system can exchange particles with one another. In our case the surfactants in the solution will flow to the surface, driven by the difference in potential energy ##\epsilon_0## between the solution and surface. They should keep flowing until ##dF_{\text{total}} = dF_2 - dF_3 = 0## since the total Helmholtz free energy of the subsystems combined has to be minimized. But this implies ##\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial N}|_{T,V} = \frac{\partial F_3}{\partial N}|_{T,V} \Rightarrow \mu_2 = \mu_3## hence ##n_2 = n_3 \lambda e^{-\beta\epsilon_0} ## which is certainly the wrong answer since this implies ##n_2 \ll n_3## for ##\epsilon_0 \rightarrow \infty## whereas it should be the other way around; in fact the correct answer should be ##n_2 = n_3 \lambda e^{\beta\epsilon_0} ##.

So where am I going wrong? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[strike]How did you go from ##F=Nk_BT\ln n_d\lambda^d-N\epsilon_d-Nk_BT## to ##\mu_d=k_BT\ln n_d\lambda^d-\epsilon_d##?

What happened to the last ##-Nk_B T## term?[/strike]

EDIT: REDACTED
 
Last edited:
Are ##\mu_d = -\epsilon_d + k_B T \ln (n_d \lambda^d)##, ##\epsilon_0 \equiv \epsilon_3 - \epsilon_2## and ##n_2 = n_3 \lambda e^{\beta\epsilon_0} ## given as the right answers?
 
Yes blobly. This is problem 4.6 in Kardar if you're interested.
 
Oops! I forgot that ##\epsilon_0 < 0## as per my sign convention so my answer agrees with the book's answer and the correct limit is actually ##\epsilon_0 \rightarrow -\infty## which gives ##n_2 \gg n_3## as desired.

And thank you to matterwave for setting my head straight on this :)
 
This is one deeply confusing sign error, got to admit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K