Chemistry What does this equation for an electrochemical cell mean?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the Standard Gibbs free energy for an electrochemical cell reaction involving cerium and iodine, specifically the equation 2Ce^{4+}(aq) + 3I^-(aq) → 2Ce^{3+}(aq) + I_3^-(aq). Participants clarify that while the reaction does not involve solid metals, inert electrodes, such as platinum, are necessary to facilitate electron transfer. The reduction of cerium ions occurs at the cathode, while iodine ions interact with the inert electrode to form triiodide, with no free iodine atoms produced. Additionally, the role of water of solvation and potential additives in enhancing the reaction efficiency is acknowledged. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the physical setup of electrochemical cells beyond traditional solid metal examples.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Consider the electrochemical cell reaction given by
Relevant Equations
$$\mathrm{2Ce^{4+}(aq)+3I^-(aq)\rightarrow 2Ce^{3+}(aq)+I_3^-(aq),\ \ \ \ \ E^\circ_{cell}=+1.08V}$$
Item (a) of problem 1 of a chapter on "Galvanic Cells" asks us to calculate the Standard Gibbs free energy for this cell reaction.

I can do the calculation, but I am frustrated by the following.

The entire chapter focused on the electrochemical cell

$$\mathrm{Zn(s)|Zn^{2+}(aq)||Cu^{2+}(aq)|Cu(s)}$$

with explanations for what this means in terms of a physical setup. Namely, solid metals immersed in ionic solutions, connected by a conductor and a salt bridge.

The equation

$$\mathrm{2Ce^{4+}(aq)+3I^-(aq)\rightarrow 2Ce^{3+}(aq)+I_3^-(aq),\ \ \ \ \ E^\circ_{cell}=+1.08V}$$

doesn't have any solid metals in it.

It appears we have the redox half equations

$$\mathrm{2Ce^{4+}(aq)+2e^-\rightarrow 2Ce^{3+}(aq)}$$

$$\mathrm{3I^-(aq)\rightarrow I_3^-(aq)+2e^-}$$

Is this correct?

What does this cell look like in real physical terms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is my guess.

Not all electrode reactions include a conducting solid as a reactant or product.

A hydrogen electrode, for example, includes hydrogen gas and aqueous hydrogen cations.

There is, however, a chemically inert metallic conductor present, such as an unreactive metal or graphite or platinum (in the case of a traditional hydrogen electrode), which serves to carry electrons into or out of the electrode compartment.

So in the case of the cell reaction involve cerium and iodine, I suppose there would be something similar, ie some inert metal conductor present.

Perhaps we would have

$$\mathrm{Pt(s)|Ce^{3+}(aq),Ce^{4+}(aq)||I^-(aq),I_3^-(aq)|Pt(s)}$$

However, we don't have gases. Instead we seem to have two solutions, one at each inert metal, each containing two different ions.

The oxidized and reduced species are both in the same phase.

Not clear though how this works exactly.

Since ##E^\circ_{\text{cell}}## is positive we have electrons moving spontaneously from the electrode with the iodine ions to the electrode with the cerium ions.

In the case of the zinc/copper example, I understood that we had solid zinc being oxidized and going into solution and copper ions being reduced and becoming solid copper.

In the case of cerium and iodine, what happens exactly?
 
Pt act as an inert electrode (and possibly catalytic in some case) and simply connects the circuit.
 
zenterix said:
In the case of cerium and iodine, what happens exactly?
Yes, you are correct, there would be inert electrodes of some sort

Physically, Cerium(IV) ions get close enough to the cathode that an electron can hop from the cathode to the cerium ion, reducing it to cerium(III). The cerium(III) ion then floats away in solution.

The iodine is likely slightly more complicated; each I- ion will go to the inert electrode and give up its electron, but you're not going to get a free iodine atom floating off into solution. Probably you get a couple iodine atoms adsorbed to the electrode until they can meet up with each other to form the I2 molecule, which will then react separately with an additional I- ion to form the triiodide.

There's also water of solvation in all of these cases which can affect how the ions interact with the electrodes in subtle ways. In a real battery, various ligands or other additives might be added to either solution to make the interaction of the reactants with the electrode more efficient, or prevent various possible side reactions.
 
ketoenol said:
Yes, you are correct, there would be inert electrodes of some sort

Physically, Cerium(IV) ions get close enough to the cathode that an electron can hop from the cathode to the cerium ion, reducing it to cerium(III). The cerium(III) ion then floats away in solution.

The iodine is likely slightly more complicated; each I- ion will go to the inert electrode and give up its electron, but you're not going to get a free iodine atom floating off into solution. Probably you get a couple iodine atoms adsorbed to the electrode until they can meet up with each other to form the I2 molecule, which will then react separately with an additional I- ion to form the triiodide.

There's also water of solvation in all of these cases which can affect how the ions interact with the electrodes in subtle ways. In a real battery, various ligands or other additives might be added to either solution to make the interaction of the reactants with the electrode more efficient, or prevent various possible side reactions.
To be add, the addition of ligands will likely drastically change the electrochemistry. The example in the original post is only (safely) applicable to simple Cerium salts.
 
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