Liquid, fugacity solutions, activity

We now have the foundation for applying thermodynamics to chemical processes. We have defined the potential that moves mass in a chemical process and have developed the criteria for spontaneity and for equilibrium in terms of this chemical potential. We have defined fugacity and activity in terms of the chemical potential and have derived the equations for determining the effect of pressure and temperature on the fugacity and activity. Finally, we have introduced the concept of a standard state, have described the usual choices of standard states for pure substances (solids, liquids, or gases) and for components in solution, and have seen how these choices of standard states reduce the activity to pressure in gaseous systems in the limits of low pressure, to concentration (mole fraction or molality) in solutions in the limit of low concentration of solute, and to a value near unity for pure solids or pure liquids at pressures near ambient. 

Perhaps the most significant of the partial molar properties, because of its application to equilibrium thermodynamics, is the chemical potential, i. This fundamental property, and related properties such as fugacity and activity, are essential to mathematical solutions of phase equilibrium problems. The natural logarithm of the liquid-phase activity coefficient, lny, is also defined as a partial molar quantity. For liquid mixtures, the activity coefficient, y describes nonideal liquid-phase behavior. 

The Chao-Seader and the Grayson-Streed methods are very similar in that they both use the same mathematical models for each phase. For the vapor, the Redlich-Kwong equation of state is used. This two-parameter generalized pressure-volume-temperature (P-V-T) expression is very convenient because only the critical constants of the mixture components are required for applications. For the liquid phase, both methods used the regular solution theory of Scatchard and Hildebrand (26) for the activity coefficient plus an empirical relationship for the reference liquid fugacity coefficient. Chao-Seader and Grayson-Streed derived different constants for these two liquid equations, however. 

For liquids that cannot be represented by equations of state, the liquid fugacities are expressed in terms of activity coefficients, discussed in Section 1.3.3. For ideal solutions. Equation 1.24 reduces to Raoult s law, presented in Section 1.3.2. 

We will have occasion to use the Henry s law descriptions (on both a mole fraction and a molality basis) and the associated activity coefficients several times in this book. The immediate disadvantage of these choices is that / (T, P,x — 1) and ff T, P, M = ]) can be obtained only by extrapolation of experimental information for very dilute solutions. However, this information may be easier to obtain and more accurate than that obtained by estimating the pure liquid fugacity of a species whose equilibrium state is a supercritical gas or a solid below its triple-point temperature. 

To summarize, the laws of Raoult and Henry, originally established for liquid-vapor and liquid-gas systems, give rise to useful generalities for all solutions, gas, liquid, or solid, when restated in terms of fugacities and activities. If fugacities are available, the activity concept is unnecessary. Activity becomes useful in systems where fugacities are unknown, as it can be measured in other ways. Nevertheless,... 

We can follow the same procedure for a solvent or solute of a liquid solution. We replace the left side of Eq. 9.6.1 with an expression from among Eqs. 9.5.15-9.5.18, then derive an expression analogous to Eq. 9.6.3 for the activity coefficient with a composition-independent factor, and finally apply the limiting conditions that cause the activity coefficient to approach unity (Eqs. 9.5.21-9.5.24) and allow us to evaluate the factor. When we take the limits that cause the solute activity coefficients to approach unity, the ratios fn/x, /b/cb, and fB/niB become Henry s law constants (Eqs. 9.4.19-9.4.21). The resulting expressions for activity coefficients as functions of fugacity are listed in Table 9.4 on the next page. 

It is strictly for convenience that certain conventions have been adopted in the choice of a standard-state fugacity. These conventions, in turn, result from two important considerations (a) the necessity for an unambiguous thermodynamic treatment of noncondensable components in liquid solutions, and (b) the relation between activity coefficients given by the Gibbs-Duhem equation. The first of these considerations leads to a normalization for activity coefficients for nonoondensable components which is different from that used for condensable components, and the second leads to the definition and use of adjusted or pressure-independent activity coefficients. These considerations and their consequences are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

For such components, as the composition of the solution approaches that of the pure liquid, the fugacity becomes equal to the mole fraction multiplied by the standard-state fugacity. In this case,the standard-state fugacity for component i is the fugacity of pure liquid i at system temperature T. In many cases all the components in a liquid mixture are condensable and Equation (13) is therefore used for all components in this case, since all components are treated alike, the normalization of activity coefficients is said to follow the symmetric convention. ... 

In a binary liquid solution containing one noncondensable and one condensable component, it is customary to refer to the first as the solute and to the second as the solvent. Equation (13) is used for the normalization of the solvent s activity coefficient but Equation (14) is used for the solute. Since the normalizations for the two components are not the same, they are said to follow the unsymmetric convention. The standard-state fugacity of the solvent is the fugacity of the pure liquid. The standard-state fugacity of the solute is Henry s constant. 

When Eq. (4-282) is applied to XT E for which the vapor phase is an ideal gas and the liquid phase is an ideal solution, it reduces to a veiy simple expression. For ideal gases, fugacity coefficients and are unity, and the right-hand side of Eq. (4-283) reduces to the Poynting factor. For the systems of interest here this factor is always veiy close to unity, and for practical purposes <1 = 1. For ideal solutions, the activity coefficients are also unity. Equation (4-282) therefore reduces to... 

Where R is the gas constant, T the temperature (K), Fthe Faraday constant and H2 is the relative partial pressure (strictly, the fugacity) of hydrogen in solution, which for continued evolution becomes the total external pressure against which hydrogen bubbles must prevail to escape (usually 1 atm). The activity of water a jo is not usually taken into account in elementary treatments, since it is assumed that <7h2 0 = U nd for dilute solutions this causes little error. In some concentrated plating baths Oh2 0 I O nd neither is it in baths which use mixtures of water and miscible organic liquids (e.g. dimethyl formamide). However, by far the most important term is the hydrogen ion activity this may be separated so that equation 12.1 becomes... 

Activity coefficient models offer an alternative approach to equations of state for the calculation of fugacities in liquid solutions (Prausnitz ct al. 1986 Tas-sios, 1993). These models are also mechanistic and contain adjustable parameters to enhance their correlational ability. The parameters are estimated by matching the thermodynamic model to available equilibrium data. In this chapter, vve consider the estimation of parameters in activity coefficient models for electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions. 

For concentrated solutions, the activity coefficient of an electrolyte is conveniently defined as though it were a nonelectrolyte. This is a practical definition for the description of phase equilibria involving electrolytes. This new activity coefficient f. can be related to the mean ionic activity coefficient by equating expressions for the liquid-phase fugacity written in terms of each of the activity coefficients. For any 1-1 electrolyte, the relation is ... 

In this definition, the activity coefficient takes account of nonideal liquid-phase behavior for an ideal liquid solution, the coefficient for each species equals 1. Similarly, the fugacity coefficient represents deviation of the vapor phase from ideal gas behavior and is equal to 1 for each species when the gas obeys the ideal gas law. Finally, the fugacity takes the place of vapor pressure when the pure vapor fails to show ideal gas behavior, either because of high pressure or as a result of vapor-phase association or dissociation. Methods for calculating all three of these follow. 

The water electrolysis rest potential is determined from extrapolation to ideal conditions. Variations of the concentration, c, and pressure, p, from ideality are respectively expressed by the activity (or fugacity for a gas), as a = yc (or yp for a gas), with the ideal state defined at 1 atmosphere for a pure liquid (or solid), and extrapolated from p = 0 or for a gas or infinite dilution for a dissolved species. The formal potential, measured under real conditions of c and p can deviate significantly from the (ideal thermodynamic) rest potential, as for example the activity of water, aw, at, or near, ambient conditions generally ranges from approximately 1 for dilute solutions to less than 0.1 for concentrated alkaline and acidic electrolytes.91"93 The potential for the dissociation of water decreases from 1.229 V at 25 °C in the liquid phase to 1.167 V at 100 °C in the gas phase. Above the boiling the point, pressure is used to express the variation of water activity. The variation of the electrochemical potential for water in the liquid and gas phases are given by ... 

A and Tj are the activity coefficient matrices for vapor and liquid phases and are diagonal. For ideal solutions, they become the identity matrix. K is the fugacity ratio matrix and is also diagonal. 

Activity and Activity Coefficient. —When a pure liquid or a mixture is in equilibrium with its vapor, the chemical potential of any constituent in the liquid must be equal to that in the vapor this is a consequence of the thermodynamic requirement that for a system at equilibrium a small change at constant temperature and pressure shall not be accompanied by any change of free energy, i.e., (d( )r. p is zero. It follows, therefore, that if the vapor can be regarded as behaving ideally, the chemical potential of the constituent i of a solution can be written in the same form as equation (7), where p,- is now the partial pressure of the component in the vapor in equilibrium with the solution. If the vapor is not ideal, the partial pressure should be replaced by an ideal pressure, or fugacity, but this correction need not be considered further. According to Raoult s... 

K2 are the activity coefficients of the solid solute in its samrated solutions in the cosolvent, water, and mixed solvent, respectively P) is the hypothetical fu-gacity of a solid as a (subcooled) liquid at a given pressure (P) and temperature (T) / is the fugac-ity of the pure solid component 2 and y indicates that the activity coefficients of the solute depend on composition. If the solubilities of the pure and mixed solvents in the solid phase are negligible, then the left hand sides of Eqs. (l)-(3) depend only on the properties of the solute. 

We employ y to denote the activity coefficient defined relative to the pure substance and y the activity coefficient defined relative to an infinitely dilute solution. The only other use of a superscript asterisk (except in the statistical mechanical discussion of intermolecular forces and liquids) is to distinguish the pressure p from the fugacity, p. ... 

---