1.4.3: Chemical Equilibria- Solutions- Simple Solutes
- Page ID
- 352525
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
\(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
\(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)
A given chemical equilibrium involves association of two solutes \(\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{aq})\) and \(\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{aq})\) to form solute \(\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{aq})\).
\[2 X(a q)+Y(a q) \rightleftharpoons 4 Z(a q) \nonumber \]
Phase Rule. The aqueous solution is prepared using two chemical substances: substance \(\mathrm{Z}\) and solvent water. Hence \(\mathrm{C} = 2\). There are 2 phases: vapour and solution so \(\mathrm{P} = 2\). Then \(\mathrm{F} = 2\). Hence at fixed temperature and in a system prepared using mole fraction \(x_{\mathrm{Z}}\) of substance \(\mathrm{Z}\) (an intensive composition variable), the equilibrium vapour pressure and the equilibrium amounts of \(\mathrm{X}(\mathrm{aq})\), \(\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{aq})\) and \(\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{aq})\) are unique.
\[\text { At equilibrium, } 2 \, \mu_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{aq})+\mu_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{aq})=4 \, \mu_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{aq}) \nonumber \]
At fixed \(\mathrm{T}\) and \(p\), assuming ambient pressure is close to the standard pressure \(p^{0}\),
\[\begin{aligned}
&2 \,\left[\mu_{\mathrm{X}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq})+\mathrm{R} \, \mathrm{T} \, \ln \left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{X}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{X}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{\mathrm{eq}}\right] \\
&\quad+\left[\mu_{\mathrm{Y}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq})+\mathrm{R} \, \mathrm{T} \, \ln \left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Y}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{Y}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{\mathrm{eq}}\right] \\
&\quad=4 \,\left[\mu_{\mathrm{Z}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq})+\mathrm{R} \, \mathrm{T} \, \ln \left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Z}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{Z}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]
\end{aligned} \nonumber \]
\[\text { where } \Delta_{\mathrm{r}} \mathrm{G}^{0}=-\mathrm{R} \, \mathrm{T} \, \ln \left(\mathrm{K}^{0}\right)=4 \, \mu_{\mathrm{Z}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq})-2 \, \mu_{\mathrm{X}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq})-\mu_{\mathrm{Y}}^{0}(\mathrm{aq}) \nonumber \]
For this equilibrium at temperature \(\mathrm{T}\) and pressure \(p\),
\[\mathrm{K}^{0}=\frac{\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\mathrm{eq}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{4}}{\left(\mathrm{~m}_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{2} \,\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}} \, \gamma_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)} \nonumber \]
If the solution is quite dilute, \(\gamma_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}}\), \(\gamma_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}}\) and \gamma_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\mathrm{eq}} are effectively unity in the real solution at equilibrium. Then
\[\mathrm{K}^{0}=\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{eq}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{4} /\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right)^{2} \,\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}} / \mathrm{m}^{0}\right) \nonumber \]
\(\mathrm{K}^{0}\) is dimensionless. But the latter statement signals a common problem in this subject because chemists find it more convenient and informative to define a quantity \({\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}}^{0}\) in which the m0 terms in equation (f) [or its equivalent] have been removed.
\[\text { Thus, } \mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}^{0}=\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)^{4} /\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)^{2} \,\left(\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{Y}}^{\mathrm{eq}}\right) \nonumber \]
Hence the units for \({\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}}^{0}\) signal the stoichiometry of the equilibrium whereas the dimensionless \(\mathrm{K}^{0}\) does not [1,2].
Footnotes
[1] As a consequence of the removal of the \(\mathrm{m}^{0}\) terms, \(\mathrm{K}^{0}\) quantities have units unless the equation for the chemical equilibrium is stoichiometrically balanced: e.g. n-moles of reactants form n-moles of products.
But from equation (g), \(\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}^{0}=\left[\mathrm{mol} \mathrm{kg}^{-1}\right]^{4} \,\left[\mathrm{mol} \mathrm{kg}{ }^{-1}\right]^{-2} \,\left[\mathrm{mol} \mathrm{kg}^{-1}\right]^{-1}\) or \(\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}^{0}=\left[\mathrm{mol} \mathrm{} \mathrm{kg}^{-1}\right]\)
If we write, \(\Delta_{\mathrm{r}} \mathrm{G}^{0}=-\mathrm{R} \, \mathrm{T} \, \ln \left(\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{m}}^{0}\right)\)
Then \(\Delta_{\mathrm{r}} \mathrm{G}^{0}=\left[\mathrm{J} \mathrm{K}^{-1} \mathrm{~mol}^{-1}\right] \,[\mathrm{K}] \, \ln \left[\mathrm{mol} \mathrm{kg}{ }^{-1}\right]\)
ln There is clearly a slight problem in handling a logarithm of a composition unit. There are two approaches to this problem. The first approach ignores the problem, which is unsatisfactory practice. The second approach is to ask - what happened to the composition unit and trace the problem back through the equations.
[2] The impact of composition units in quantitative analysis of data was addressed by E. A. Guggenheim, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1937,33,607.


