Chemistry Understanding chemical potential of gas in mixture versus pure gas, used in derivation of equilibrium constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the equilibrium constant in reactions involving gases, highlighting the difference in chemical potential between pure gases and gases in mixtures. It establishes that the chemical potential of a gas in a mixture is lower than that of a pure gas, a concept derived from the equation relating chemical potential in mixtures to that in pure states. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how these potentials influence the Gibbs energy of reaction, particularly in the context of mixtures. Additionally, it points out the need for clarity regarding conditions under which chemical potentials are compared. Overall, the thread seeks to clarify the application of these principles in thermodynamic calculations.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
I've been studying chemical potential in a chemistry course and in a thermodynamics course.
Relevant Equations
There is a derivation that I always come back to but I still don't fully understand it.

That derivation is of the chemical equilibrium constant.
Suppose we have a reaction where reactants ##A## and ##B## react to form products ##C## and ##D## according to the balanced equation

$$\nu_AA+\nu_BB\rightarrow \nu_CC+\nu_DD$$

Suppose the reaction has occurred to some extent and we have ##a,b,c,## and ##d## moles of reactants and products.

Let the reaction proceed infinitesimally such that the number of moles changes as follows

$$(aA,bB,cC,dD)\rightarrow ((a-\epsilon\nu_A)A, (b-\epsilon\nu_B)B, (c+\epsilon\nu_C)C, (d+\epsilon\nu_D)D)$$

Then, by definition of chemical potential we have

$$\Delta G=G_{\text{after}}-G_{\text{before}}$$

$$=((a-\epsilon\nu_A)\mu_A+(b-\epsilon\nu_B)\mu_B+(c-\epsilon\nu_C)\mu_C+(d-\epsilon\nu_D)\mu_D)-(a\mu_A+b\mu_B+c\mu_C+d\mu_D)$$

$$=\epsilon((\mu_C\nu_C+\mu_D\nu_D)-(\mu_A\nu_A+\mu_B\nu_B))$$

We can now sub in for the chemical potentials using the equation

$$\mu_i(T,P)=\mu_i^\circ+RT\ln{\left (\frac{P_i}{1\ \text{bar}}\right )}$$

We reach

$$\Delta G=\epsilon \left [ (\mu_C^\circ\nu_C+\mu_D^\circ\nu_D)-(\mu_A^\circ\nu_A+\mu_B^\circ\nu_B)+RT\ln{\left ( \frac{P_C^{\nu_C}P_D^{\nu_D}}{P_A^{\nu_A}P_B^{\nu_B}} \right )} \right ]$$

Okay, my question concerns the next step.
In my notes, I have the following

$$\Delta G_{rxn}^\circ=\nu_C\mu_C^\circ(\text{pure})+\nu_D\mu_D^\circ(\text{pure})-\nu_A\mu_A^\circ(\text{pure})-\nu_B\mu_B^\circ(\text{pure})$$

Therefore

$$\Delta G=\epsilon (\Delta G_{rxn}^\circ+RT\ln{Q})$$

Now, these notes are based on lectures from MIT OCW's Thermodynamics course.

The lectures in that course are quite confusing and the lecturers unfortunately routinely make many uncorrected mistakes on the blackboard every lecture. It's difficult sometimes to know what is what.

Here is what I have in my notes exactly

1736024682581.png


So, I think "pure" has to do with a gas being by itself or in a mixture. The chemical potential of the gas in the mixture is smaller than the chemical potential of the pure gas.

This is a result that was derived previously

$$\mu_i(\text{mix},T,P_T)=\mu_i(\text{pure},T,P_T)+RT\ln{(x_i)}\tag{1}$$

It appears that ##\Delta G^\circ_{rxn}## is the Gibbs energy of reaction that we commonly see in tables and does not include entropy of mixing.

In the calculations in this post, we are trying to reason about a mixture (of reactants and products in the reaction in question). I can't really identify where (1) is used in all of this derivation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
μi(mix, T, PT) = μi(pure, T, PT) + RTln(xi)
= μi(pure, T, 1 atm) + RTln(PT/1 atm) + RTln(Pi/PT)
= μ°i + RTln(Pi/1 atm)
= μi(pure, T, Pi)

Thus the chemical potential is the same for the pure gas and the gas in the mixture at the same partial pressure. With this substitution, the equation is used in the derivation of the equilibrium constant.

You need to be careful about statements like "The chemical potential of the gas in the mixture is smaller than the chemical potential of the pure gas." Under what conditions?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top