## Posts Tagged ‘chemical thermodynamics’ In my previous post JH van ‘t Hoff and the Gaseous Theory of Solutions, I related how van ‘t Hoff deduced a thermodynamically exact relation between osmotic pressure and the vapor pressures of pure solvent and solvent in solution, and then abandoned it in favor of an erroneous idea which seemed to possess greater aesthetic appeal, on account of a chance encounter with a colleague in an Amsterdam street.

Rendered in modern notation, the thermodynamically exact equation van ‘t Hoff deduced in his Studies in Chemical Dynamics (1884), was Following his flawed moment of inspiration upon learning the results of osmotic experiments conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer, he leaped to the conclusion that the law of dilute solutions was formally identical with the ideal gas law It would seem van ‘t Hoff was so enamored with the idea of solutions and gases obeying the same fundamental law, that he failed to notice that the latter equation is actually a special case of the former. Viewed from this perspective, the latter’s resemblance to the gas law is entirely coincidental; it arises solely from a sequence of approximations applied to the original equation.

As a footnote to history, CarnotCycle lays out the path by which the latter equation can be reached from the former, and shows how accuracy reduces commensurately with simplification.

– – – –

We begin with van ‘t Hoff’s thermodynamically exact equation from the Studies in Chemical Dynamics

where Π is the osmotic pressure, V1 is the partial molal volume of the solvent in the solution, p0 is the vapor pressure of the pure solvent and p is the vapor pressure of the solvent in the solution.

Assuming an ideal solution, in the sense that Raoult’s law is obeyed, then where x1 and x2 are the mole fractions of solvent and solute respectively. So for an ideal solution, equation 1 becomes If the ideal solution is also dilute, the mole fraction of the solute is small and hence so that For a dilute solution x2 approximates to n2/n1, where n2 and n1 are the moles of solute and solvent, respectively, in the solution. The above equation may therefore be written In dilute solution, the partial molal volume of the solvent V1 is generally identical with the ordinary molar volume of the solvent. The product V1n1 is then the total volume of solvent in the solution, and V1n1/n2 is the volume of solvent per mole of solute. Representing this quantity by V’, the above equation becomes

which is identical with the empirical equation proposed by HN Morse in 1905. For an extremely dilute solution the volume V’ may be replaced by the volume V of the solution containing 1 mole of solute; under these conditions we have

which is the van ‘t Hoff equation.

– – – –

It is instructive to compare the osmotic pressures calculated from the numbered equations shown above and those obtained by experiment. It is seen that Eq.1, which involves measured vapor pressures, is in good agreement with experiment at all concentrations. Eq.3 fails in all but the most dilute solutions, while Eq.2 represents only a modest improvement. These figures give a measure of van ‘t Hoff’s talent as a theoretician in deducing Eq.1, and the error into which he fell when abandoning it in favor of Eq.3.

– – – –

Mouse-over links to works referred to in this post

Jacobus Henricus van ‘t Hoff Studies in Chemical Dynamics

– – – –

P Mander June 2015 If the man who almost single-handedly invented chemical thermodynamics – the American mathematical physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs – had owned an automobile, he would have had no trouble figuring out the action of antifreeze.

“The problem reduces to consideration of a binary solution in equilibrium with solid solvent,” I can hear old Josiah saying. “Such a thermodynamic system has two degrees of freedom, so at constant pressure there must be a relation between temperature and composition.”

And indeed there is. The relation corresponds to the observed depression of the freezing point of a solvent by a solute. What’s more, its exact form confirms how antifreeze really works.

– – – –

Computing chemical potential

We have Josiah Willard Gibbs to thank for introducing the concept of chemical potential (μ) as a sort of generalized force driving the flow of chemical components between coexistent phases.

When the phases are in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure, the chemical potential of any component has the same value in each phase The key point to note here is that μi is the chemical potential of component i in an arbitrary state, i.e. in a mixture of components. In order to compute this potential we need to know two things: the chemical potential of the pure substance μi0 at a pressure p (such as that of the atmosphere), and the mole fraction (xi) of the component in the mixture. Assuming an ideal solution, use can then be made of the textbook formula …(1)

With pressure and temperature fixed, this equation has a single variable (xi), from which we can draw the conclusion that the variation in chemical potential of a component in an ideal solution is determined solely by its own mole fraction.

The significance of this fact can be appreciated by considering the following diagrams Here is water in equilibrium with ice at 273K. The chemical potentials of the solid and liquid phases are equal; there is no net driving force in either direction. Now consider the effect of adding an antifreeze agent to the liquid phase Assuming the temperature held constant at 273K, the addition of antifreeze reduces the mole fraction of water, lowering its chemical potential in accordance with equation 1. The coexistent solid phase now has a higher potential, providing the driving force to transform ice into water. Since the temperature is held constant, this equates to the lowering of the freezing point of water in the mixture.

– – – –

To obtain a formula for the freezing point of water in a solution containing antifreeze, we start with the equilibrium relation where the zero superscript indicates a standard potential, i.e. that the solid phase consists of pure ice whose mole fraction x is unity. Substituting the left hand side with we obtain which after differentiation with respect to temperature at constant pressure and subsequent integration yields the formula for the freezing point of water in a solution containing antifreeze at 1 atmosphere pressure: The terms on the right are the molar enthalpy of fusion of water (ΔHf0), the freezing point of pure water (Tf0), the gas constant R and the mole fraction of water (xH2O) in the solution containing antifreeze.

The latter is the only variable, confirming that the freezing point of water in a solution containing antifreeze is determined solely by the mole fraction of water in the mixture – in other words the extent to which the water is diluted by the antifreeze agent.

This is how antifreeze works. There is nothing active about its action. It exerts its effect passively by being miscible and thereby reducing the mole fraction of water in the liquid mixture. There’s really nothing more to it than that.

– – – –

Using the formula Values for constants

Enthalpy of fusion of water ΔHf0 = 6.02 kJmol-1
Freezing point of pure water Tf0 = 273.15 K
Gas constant R = 0.008314 kJmol-1K-1

Example

651 grams of the antifreeze agent ethylene glycol (molecular weight 62.07) are added to 1.5 kg of water (molecular weight 18.02). What is the freezing point of water in this solution?

Strategy

1. Calculate the mole fraction of water in the solution Number of moles of water = 1500/18.02 = 83.2
Number of moles of ethylene glycol = 651/62.07 = 10.5
Mole fraction of water = 83.2/(83.2 + 10.5) = 0.89

2. Calculate the freezing point of water in the solution The solution will give antifreeze protection down to 261.65K or –11.5°C

– – – –

P Mander March 2015 It was the American mathematical physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs who introduced the concepts of phase and chemical potential in his milestone monograph On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances (1876-1878) with which he almost single-handedly laid the theoretical foundations of chemical thermodynamics.

In a paragraph under the heading “On Coexistent Phases of Matter” Gibbs mentions – in passing – that for a system of coexistent phases in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure, the chemical potential μ of any component must have the same value in every phase.

This simple statement turns out to have considerable practical value as we shall see. But first, let’s go through the formal proof of Gibbs’ assertion.

An important result Consider a system of two phases, each containing the same components, in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure. Suppose a small quantity dni moles of any component i is transferred from phase A in which its chemical potential is μ’i to phase B in which its chemical potential is μ”i. The Gibbs free energy of phase A changes by –μ’idni while that of phase B changes by +μ”idni. Since the system is in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure, the net change in Gibbs free energy for this process is zero and we can write hence This result can be generalized for any number of phases: for a system in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure, the chemical potential of any given component has the same value in every phase. – – – –

Visualizing variance

The equality of pressure P, temperature T and component chemical potentials μn between coexistent phases in equilibrium provides a convenient way to visualize variance, or the number of degrees of freedom a system possesses. For example, the triple point of a single component system can be visualized as the array where the solid, liquid and vapor phases are indicated by one, two and three primes respectively.

Each row represents a single variable, so the number of rows equates to the total number of variables. Each column lists the variables in a single phase. All but one of these may be independently varied; the last is determined by the Gibbs-Duhem relation There are one of these for each phase, so the number of columns equates to the number of relations (=constraints) to which the system variables are subject. The variance, or number of degrees of freedom (f) of the system is defined For arrays of the kind presented above, this transposes into For the triple point of a single component system, there are three rows and three columns, so f =0. With zero degrees of freedom, the triple point is not subject to independent variation and is represented by a fixed point in the PT plane.

The above rule implies that a system of coexistent phases in equilibrium cannot have more phases than intensive system variables.

– – – –

Generating useful equations

For a component present in any pair of coexistent phases in equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure, the chemical potential of that component has the same value in both phases From this general relation, equations may be deduced for computing various properties of thermodynamic systems such as ideal solutions, for example the elevation of boiling point, the depression of freezing point, and the variation of the solubility of a solute with temperature.

The key point to grasp is that μi is the chemical potential of component i in an arbitrary state, i.e. in a mixture of components. In order to compute this potential we need to know two things: the chemical potential of the pure substance μi0 at a pressure p (such as that of the atmosphere), and the mole fraction (xi) of the component in the mixture. Assuming an ideal solution, use can then be made of the textbook formula

where for a given phase, μi is the arbitrary chemical potential of i in the mixture, μ°i is the chemical potential of the pure substance, and xi is the mole fraction of the component.

As an example, let us take the equilibrium relation

where the chemical potential of the solid solvent is necessarily the standard potential because the mole fraction x is unity. The above relation will generate an equation for the depression of the solvent freezing point in a solution at a fixed pressure (p).

Substituting (1) for the liquid phase in (2) gives  where by convention the subscript 1 refers to the solvent. Differentiating with respect to T at constant pressure using the quotient rule for ΔG/T gives

Now since equation (3) simplifies to Integrating from the pure solvent state, where the mole fraction x1=1 and T0fus is the freezing point of the pure solvent, to the solution state where the mole fraction x1= x1 and Tfus is the freezing point of the solvent in the solution yields the equation for the depression of the solvent freezing point in a solution at a fixed pressure (p) Since x1<1 in a solution, the logarithm is negative and therefore the freezing point of the solvent in the solution must be lower than the freezing point of the pure solvent.

– – – –

Ok, so maybe that wasn’t the simplest procedure for generating a useful thermodynamic equation. But the point to be made here is that the same procedure applies in the other cases, so you only need to understand the principle once.

For example, the equation for elevation of solvent boiling point in solution with a non-volatile solute at a fixed pressure (p) is The similarity to the previous equation is evident.

– – – –

P Mander February 2015 Historical background*

It was the American physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs (1839-1903) pictured above who first introduced the thermodynamic potentials ψ, χ, ζ which we today call Helmholtz free energy (A), enthalpy (H) and Gibbs free energy (G).

In his milestone treatise On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances (1876-1878), Gibbs springs these functions on the reader with no indication of where he got them from. Using an esoteric lexicon of Greek symbols he simply states:

Let
ψ = ε – tη
χ = ε + pv
ζ = ε – tη + pv

As with much of Gibbs’ writings, the clues to his sudden pronouncements need to be sought on other pages or – as in this case – another publication.

In an earlier paper entitled A method of geometrical representation of the thermodynamic properties of substances by means of surfaces, Gibbs shows that the state of a body in terms of its volume, entropy and energy can be represented by a surface: Gibbs’ thermodynamic surface of 1873, realized by James Clerk Maxwell in 1874

It can be demonstrated from purely geometrical considerations that the tangent plane at any point on this surface represents the U-related function Now this is none other than Gibbs’ zeta (ζ ) function. The question is, did he recognize it for what it was – a Legendre transform? A key feature of On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances is the business of finding an extremum for a multivariable function subject to various kinds of constraint, and it is known that Gibbs was familiar with Lagrange’s method of multipliers – he mentions the technique by name on page 71, immediately after equation 41. The point here is that the Legendre transformation can be phrased in the same terms – for example, the multiplier expression for finding the stationary value of U when T and P are held constant yields the Legendre transform shown above.

But suggestive though this is, it actually gets us no closer to determining whether or not Gibbs was aware that ψ, χ, ζ  were Legendre transforms. Gibbs gave no indication in his writings either that he knew the transformation trick, or that he had discovered it for himself. We can only estimate likelihoods and have hunches.

*Text revised following input from Bas Mannaerts (see comments below: November 2014)

– – – – In the CarnotCycle thermodynamics library, the first textbook reference to Legendre transformation is by P.S. Epstein in 1937. Epstein was a Russian mathematical physicist who was recruited by Caltech in 1921. He was a renowned commentator on Gibbs’ work, especially in statistical mechanics. (see comments below: July 2019)

– – – –

Thermodynamics and the Legendre transformation

The fundamental relation of thermodynamics dU = TdS–PdV is an exact differential expression where the coefficients Ci are functions of the independent variables Xi. By means of Legendre transformations (ℑ) the above expression generates three new state functions whose natural variables contain one or more Ci in place of the conjugate Xi The equation of the tangent plane to the thermodynamic surface generates ℑ3, with ℑ1 and ℑ2 following procedurally from – – – –

How the Legendre transformation works defines a new Y-related function Z by transforming into Proof
dZ = dY – d(C1X1)
dZ = dY – C1dX1 – X1dC1
Substitute dY with the original differential expression
dZ = C1dX1 + C2dX2 – C1dX1 – X1dC1
The C1dX1 terms cancel, leaving
dZ = C2dX2 – X1dC1

The independent (natural) variables are transformed from Y(X1,X2) to Z(X2, C1)
The same procedural principle applies to ℑ2 and ℑ3.

– – – –

The Legendre Wheel

Since exact differential expressions in two independent (natural) variables can be written for the internal energy (U), the enthalpy (H), the Gibbs free energy (G) and the Helmholtz free energy (A), each of these state functions can generate the other three via the Legendre transformations ℑ1, ℑ2, ℑ3. This is neatly demonstrated by the Legendre Wheel, which executes the transformation functions from any of the four starting points: [click on image to enlarge]

– – – –

Legendre transformations and the Gibbs-Helmholtz equations

For an exact differential expression the transforming function can be written in terms of the natural variables of Y This Legendre transformation is the means by which we obtain the Gibbs-Helmholtz equations. Taking Y=G(T,P) as an example, ℑ1 executes the clockwise transformation while the transforming function reverses the positions of the natural variables and executes the counterclockwise transformation Setting Y=G(T,P) generates six Gibbs-Helmholtz equations, in each of which one of the two natural variables is held constant. Since there are four state functions – U, H, G and A – the total number of Gibbs-Helmholtz equations generated by this procedure is twenty-four. To this can be added a parallel set of twenty-four equations where U, H, G and A are replaced by ΔU, ΔH, ΔG and ΔA.

These equations are particularly useful since they relate a state function’s dependence on either of its natural variables to an adjacent state function on the Legendre Wheel.

– – – –

Who was Legendre?

Adrien Legendre (1752-1833) was a French mathematician. He wrote a popular and influential geometry textbook Éléments de géométrie (1794) and contributed to the development of calculus and mechanics. The Legendre transformation and Legendre polynomials are named for him. – – – –

P Mander September 2014 Volume One of the Scientific Papers of J. Willard Gibbs, published posthumously in 1906, is devoted to Thermodynamics. Chief among its content is the hugely long and desperately difficult “On the equilibrium of heterogeneous substances (1876, 1878)”, with which Gibbs single-handedly laid the theoretical foundations of chemical thermodynamics.

In contrast to James Clerk Maxwell’s textbook Theory of Heat (1871), which uses no calculus at all and hardly any algebra, preferring geometry as the means of demonstrating relationships between quantities, Gibbs’ magnum opus is stuffed with differential equations. Turning the pages of this calculus-laden work, one could easily be drawn to the conclusion that the writer was not a visual thinker.

But in Gibbs’ case, this is far from the truth.

The first two papers on thermodynamics that Gibbs published, in 1873, were in fact visually-led. Paper I deals with indicator diagrams and their comparative properties, while Paper II shows how the relations between the state variables V, P, T, U, S, given in analytical form by dU=TdS – PdV, may be expressed geometrically by means of a surface.

Indeed Gibbs propels the visual argument further by pointing out that analytical formulae are strictly unnecessary for comprehending relationships between thermodynamic state variables, since they can just as easily be understood by applying graphical methods.

Gibbs’ advocacy of the visual approach found instant favor with Maxwell, who in the fourth edition of Theory of Heat devoted no less than 12 pages to an illustrated discussion of Gibbs’ thermodynamic surface, including the wild diagram shown at the head of this post. Maxwell’s enthusiasm was such that he sculpted a clay model of the surface, from which he made a plaster cast and sent it to Gibbs at Yale in 1874. Besides his passion for using geometrical constructions to demonstrate connexions between quantities, Maxwell had an influential voice in the scientific world, and it is almost certain that he would have used it to promulgate the geometrical approach to understanding thermodynamic relationships that Gibbs had pioneered. But Maxwell’s death in 1879 at the early age of 48 brought such initiatives to a premature end.

– – – – James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) striking a pose. The studio backdrop and furnishings confirm that he was quite short in stature, but had large hands with a broad palm and relatively short fingers – the strong, practical hands of a sculptor.

The exposure that Gibbs’ thermodynamic surface gained through the agency of Maxwell proved to be short-lived; no other contemporary scientist followed Maxwell’s lead. One explanation could be that Gibbs’ visual approach lacked appeal because — for reasons best known to himself — he described it in words, not pictures. Another could be that Maxwell’s illustrations of the surface were found too difficult: a joke reportedly circulated at the time that “only one man lived who could understand Gibbs’ papers. That was Maxwell, and now he is dead.”

Whatever the actual truth, the fact remains that none of the milestone literature in the post-Maxwell period took up Gibbs’ visual approach to understanding relationships between thermodynamic properties. Instead, the approach taken in textbooks by Max Planck (1879), GH Bryan (1909), JR Partington (1913) and most importantly by Lewis & Randall (1923) and Guggenheim (1933), was analytical.

Writing in 1936, the American mathematician Edwin Wilson (who had attended Gibbs’ lectures at Yale in 1901-2) argued that Gibbs’ entropy-temperature diagram in Paper I and the thermodynamic surface in Paper II were both victims of the inevitable choices that science makes as it evolves.

He commented: “Science goes on its way, picking and choosing and modifying. The trend of the last fifty years is not towards Papers I and II. Interesting as they are historically, and important because of the preparation they afforded Willard Gibbs for writing his great memoir III [On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances], there is no present indication that they are in themselves significant for present or future science.”

– – – –

JR Partington’s fascinating Text-book of Thermodynamics (with Special Reference to Chemistry) of 1913, although presenting the subject analytically, nonetheless points out the graphical origins of Gibbs’ early discoveries. James Riddick Partington (1886-1965), whose Text-book of Thermodynamics was published just before the outbreak of the Great War. It provides a detailed and historically fascinating view of the subject in the decade before Lewis & Randall produced their watershed work.

Commenting on Paper II, Partington writes: “In this very important memoir Gibbs shows that the conditions of equilibrium of two parts of a substance in contact can be expressed geometrically in terms of the position of the tangent planes to the volume-entropy-energy surface of the substance, and he finds that the analytical expression of this property is that the value of this function (U–TS+PV) shall be the same for the two states at the same temperature and pressure.”

For those of us educated in the analytical age, it is indeed remarkable to discover that the free energy function was first obtained by Gibbs using purely graphical methods, and that the pressure-temperature equilibrium relation G(α)=G(β) between two phases of a substance in contact was originally derived from geometrical considerations.

In fact the volume-entropy-energy diagram enabled Gibbs to reach a further conclusion of great importance to his future work in thermodynamics: namely that the volume, entropy and energy of a mixture of portions of a substance in different states (whether in equilibrium or not) are the sums of the volumes, entropies and energies of the separate parts. This suggested to Gibbs that mixtures of substances differing in chemical composition, as well as physical state, might be treated in a similar manner.

It was this clue from Paper II that gave Gibbs the conceptual springboard he needed for investigating chemical equilibrium, the subject matter of Paper III – On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances.

– – – – Ok, so let’s take a closer look at Gibbs’ thermodynamic surface of 1873, realized by Maxwell in 1874. Each point on this surface describes the state of a body (of invariable composition) in terms of its volume, entropy and energy.

Now if we were to slice vertical sections of this surface perpendicular to the energy-volume plane, the curve of section would represent the relation between energy and entropy when the volume is constant; the tangent of the angle of slope of this curve of section is therefore (dU/dS)V. By similar reasoning, the curve of section of the surface perpendicular to the energy-entropy plane represents the relation between energy and volume when the entropy is constant. The tangent of the angle of slope of this curve of section is therefore (dU/dV)S.

From the fundamental thermodynamic relation dU = TdS – PdV, we can identify (dU/dS)V as the absolute temperature T which reckoned from zero is essentially positive, and (dU/dV)S as the pressure P which is reckoned negative when the energy U increases as the volume V increases. The first appearance in print of the Gibbs free energy function, as the equation of the tangent plane at any point of the (v,η,ε) surface, in “A method of geometrical representation of the thermodynamic properties of substances by means of surfaces”

The tangent plane therefore represents the same temperature and pressure at all points. Gibbs used this geometrical property of the model to show that if two points in the surface (such as ε’ and ε”) have a common tangent plane, the states they represent can exist permanently in contact. He then gave the analytical expression of this condition – that what we now know as the Gibbs free energy of states ε’ and ε” are equal. But he did not show the geometrical reasoning by which he reached his conclusion.

Maybe he thought we could work it all out in our heads, who knows. Personally I much prefer to see these things drawn – and especially in this case, for it is a rewarding exercise in solid geometry to see how the answer emerges. CarnotCycle is indebted to Ronald Kriz for making available the following explanatory diagram: This diagram uses the Greek letters employed by Gibbs to denote internal energy (ε) and entropy (η). Source: Ronald Kriz, private communication

The common tangent plane through states ε’ and ε” cuts the axis of energy at a single point, marked ε. Beginning with the liquid state ε’, the length ε’ε on the axis of energy is the sum of Δε’η (due to the entropy change) and Δε’v (due to the volume change).

Since the tangent plane defines t’ = Δε’η/η’ and –p’ = Δε’v/v’ we have

ε = ε’ – t’η’ + p’v’

The right hand member of this equation is composed entirely of state variables, and thus denotes a state function associated with the point ε’ on the thermodynamic surface.

Turning to the gas state ε”, the length ε”ε on the axis of energy is the sum of Δε”η (due to the entropy change) and Δε”v (due to the volume change).

Since the tangent plane defines t” = Δε”η/η” and –p” = Δε”v/v” we have

ε = ε” – t”η” + p”v”

The right hand member of this equation is composed entirely of state variables, and thus denotes a state function associated with the point ε” on the thermodynamic surface.

An identical result will be obtained for all such pairs of points on the so-called node-couple curve, the branches of which unite at the isopycnic or critical point. Since the magnitude of the state function ε–tη+pv (in modern notation U–TS+PV=G) is the same for each pair, it is demonstrated that G(ε’)=G(ε”) is the analytical expression of the condition of coexistent equilibrium of separate states of a substance of invariable composition at the same temperature and pressure.

– – – –

P Mander May 2014