Chemistry Why is the activity of water as a solvent very nearly 1?

AI Thread Summary
The activity of water as a solvent is considered to be nearly 1 because it is treated as a pure substance in dilute solutions, leading to its activity being defined relative to a standard concentration of 1 mol/L. This simplification arises from the equilibrium constant expression, where the activities of solutes are calculated using their concentrations divided by this standard. The choice of 1 for the standard state activity is somewhat arbitrary but serves to simplify calculations and maintain consistency across thermodynamic data. In standard states, the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG) equals the standard Gibbs free energy change (ΔG°), with activities of solutes being zero when at their standard states. Thus, the convention of using 1 for the activity of pure solvents like water facilitates easier understanding and application in chemical equations.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Consider the proton transfer reaction between water molecules
Relevant Equations
$$\mathrm{H_2O(l)+H_2O(l)\leftrightharpoons H_3O^+(aq)+OH^-(aq)}$$
The equilibrium constant is

$$K=\frac{a_{\mathrm{H_3O^+}}a_{\mathrm{OH^-}}}{(a_{\mathrm{H_2O}})^2}$$

where ##a_J## denotes the activity of a solute ##\text{J}## in a dilute solution, ##\mathrm{[J]}/c^\circ## with ##c^\circ=1\mathrm{mol\cdot L^{-1}}##.

The book I am following says that the solvent, water, is very nearly pure, "and so its activity may be taken to be 1".

Where does this 1 come from?

It certainly is not $$\mathrm{[H_2O]/c^\circ}$$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, so it seems that "activity" is not as simple as it was presented to me so far.

Apparently, if a substance ##J## is a pure solid or liquid then whatever concentration it has is the "standard concentration" that you divide by when you compute activity. Thus, pure water as a solvent in a dilute solution has approximately this standard concentration and so when we calculation activity we have the same concentration in the numerator and denominator.

I don't know much more that this very vague explanation but I can see that there is a relatively simple reason for the 1.
 
There are probably historical reasons why we ended with 1, but to some extent it is an arbitrary number. We could choose any other number for the activity in the standard state, as activity in every other state is in a relation to that basic one. So if you choose 1 you just make the reference easier to remember. Sure, choosing any other number would require rescaling all values of experimentally determined thermodynamic data - but if you were to use these new numbers in practical calculations changes would cancel out and final results would be exactly the same they are now.

So let's stick with 1 :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G, zenterix, jim mcnamara and 1 other person
The point is, that if all components are in their standard states, ##\Delta G=\Delta G^o## by definition.
As ## \Delta G=\Delta G^o+\sum_i \nu_i RT \ln a_i##, the ##a_i## have to be 0 in the standard state as ##\ln 1=0##. For solvents, the standard state is the pure solvent, for solutes, the solute at infinite dilution extrapolated to a concentration of 1 mol/L (or some molality condition). For gasses, a pressure of 1 atm, strictly speaking also extrapolated from infinitely low pressures.
 
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