Ideal solution model

The potential model has been applied to the adsorption of mixtures of gases. In the ideal adsorbed solution model, the adsorbed layer is treated as a simple solution, but with potential parameters assigned to each component (see Refs. 76-79). 

Figure 8.1 The entropy of mixing (in units of R) as a function of mole fraction solute for ideal mixing and for the Flory-Huggins lattice model with n = 50, 100, and 500. Values are calculated in Example 8.1.

Mixtures. A number of mixtures of the hehum-group elements have been studied and their physical properties are found to show Httle deviation from ideal solution models. Data for mixtures of the hehum-group elements with each other and with other low molecular weight materials are available (68). A similar collection of gas—soHd data is also available (69). 

Equation 22 is a special appHcation of the general Lewis-RandaH ideal solution model (3,10) that is typically used for near-ambient pressures and concentrated nonpolar solutes. 

Any convenient model for liquid phase activity coefficients can be used. In the absence of any data, the ideal solution model can permit adequate design. 

First approaches at modeling the viscoelasticity of polymer solutions on the basis of a molecular theory can be traced back to Rouse [33], who derived the so-called bead-spring model for flexible coiled polymers. It is assumed that the macromolecules can be treated as threads consisting of N beads freely jointed by (N-l) springs. Furthermore, it is considered that the solution is ideally dilute, so that intermolecular interactions can be neglected. 

First approaches to approximating the relaxation time on the basis of molecular parameters can be traced back to Rouse [33]. The model is based on a number of boundary assumptions (1) the solution is ideally dilute, i.e. intermolecular interactions are negligible (2) hydrodynamic interactions due to disturbance of the medium velocity by segments of the same chain are negligible and (3) the connector tension F(r) obeys an ideal Hookean force law. 

For a large number of the more commonly used microscopic solution models it is assumed, as we will see in Chapter 9, that the entropy of mixing is ideal. The different atoms are assumed to be randomly distributed in the solution. This means that the excess Gibbs energy is most often assumed to be purely enthalpic in nature. However, in systems with large interactions, the excess entropy may be large and negative. 

The simplest model beyond the ideal solution model is the regular solution model, first introduced by Hildebrant [9]. Here A mix, S m is assumed to be ideal, while A inix m is not. The molar excess Gibbs energy of mixing, which contains only a single free parameter, is then... 

The regular solution model (eq. 3.68) is symmetrical about xA = xB =0.5. In cases where the deviation from ideality is not symmetrical, the regular solution model is unable to reproduce the properties of the solutions and it is then necessary to introduce models with more than one free parameter. The most convenient polynomial expression with two parameters is termed the sub-regular solution model. 

In Section 3.2 the ideal solution model was introduced. The essential assumption of the ideal model is that there is no energy change associated with rearrangements of the atoms A and B. In other words the energies associated with a random distribution of A and B atoms and a severely non-random distribution, in which the A and B atoms are clustered, are equal. 

The regular solution model, originally introduced by Hildebrand [2] and further developed by Guggenheim [3], is the most used physical model beside the ideal... 

The entropy of mixing is the same as for the ideal solution model. 

It is generally observed that as the temperature increases, real solutions tend to become more ideal and r can be interpreted as the temperature at which a regular solution becomes ideal. To give a physically meaningful representation of a system r should be a positive quantity and larger than the temperature of investigation. The activity coefficient of component A for various values of Q AB is shown as a function of temperature for t = 3000 K and xA = xB = 0.5 in Figure 9.3. The model approaches the ideal model as T - t. 

If the second term in the configurational entropy of mixing, eq. (9.42), is zero, the quasi-chemical model reduces to the regular solution approximation. Here, Aab is given by (eq. (9.21). If in addition yAB =0the ideal solution model results. 

Temkin was the first to derive the ideal solution model for an ionic solution consisting of more than one sub-lattice [13]. An ionic solution, molten or solid, is considered as completely ionized and to consist of charged atoms anions and cations. These anions and cations are distributed on separate sub-lattices. There are strong Coulombic interactions between the ions, and in the solid state the positively charged cations are surrounded by negatively charged anions and vice versa. In the Temkin model, the local chemical order present in the solid state is assumed to be present also in the molten state, and an ionic liquid is considered using a quasi-lattice approach. If the different anions and the different cations have similar physical properties, it is assumed that the cations mix randomly at the cation sub-lattice and the anions randomly at the anion sub-lattice. 

In the ideal solid solution model used, the enthalpy and entropy of oxidation are independent of composition. 

However, a detailed model for the defect structure is probably considerably more complex than that predicted by the ideal, dilute solution model. For higher-defect concentration (e.g., more than 1%) the defect structure would involve association of defects with formation of defect complexes and clusters and formation of shear structures or microdomains with ordered defect. The thermodynamics, defect structure, and charge transfer in doped LaCo03 have been reviewed recently [84],... 

The previous summary of activities and their relation to equilibrium constants is not intended to replace lengthier discussions [1,18,25,51], Yet it is important to emphasize some points that unfortunately are often forgotten in the chemical literature. One is that the equilibrium constants, defined by equation 2.63, are dimensionless quantities. The second is that most of the reported equilibrium constants are only approximations of the true quantities because they are calculated by assuming the ideal solution model and are defined in terms of concentrations instead of molalities or mole fractions. Consider, for example, the reaction in solution ... 

It is easily shown that equation 2.65 is a fair approximation only if the ideal solution model is valid and A, B, and C are in very low concentrations. By accepting unity activity coefficients for all the species, equation 2.63 leads one to the equilibrium constant calculated from the molalities (Km) ... 

C-t, which means, of course, that the ideal solution model is adopted, no matter the nature or the concentrations of the solutes and the nature of the solvent. There is no way of assessing the validity of this assumption besides chemical intuition. Even if the activity coefficients could be determined for the reactants, we would still have to estimate the activity coefficient for the activated complex, which is impossible at present. Another, less serious problem is that the appropriate quantity to be related with the activation parameters should be the equilibrium constant defined in terms of the molalities of A, B, and C. As discussed after equation 2.67, A will be affected by this correction more than A f//" (see also the following discussion). 

Non-Ideal Solutions Regular and Non-Regular Solution Models... 

The use of an ideal-solution model meant that there were a number of instances where calculated and experimental results were quantitatively at variance. However, the approach very successfully predicted the general form of most of the phase diagrams, for example whether they were peritectic or eutectic, and accounted for the appearance of intermediate phases in systems such as Cr-Rh. That the approach could do this using such simple and internally self-consistent models is a demonstration of the inherent power of CALPHAD methods. The importance of this first step therefore cannot be overestimated, although its significance was not... 

Throughout the editorial stages of the emerging review it was continually necessary to spell out the differences between (a) the use of an ideal solution model, (b) the use of a regular solution model with parameters derived solely from atomic properties and finally (c) the use of interaction parameters derived by feedback from experiment. A proper luiderstanding of the differences between these three approaches lay at the heart of any realistic assessment of the value of calculations in relation to experimentally determined diagrams. 

I.2 Non-ideal mixing. In reality there are mixing energies associated with attractive and repulsive interactions between A and B atoms and a further excess mixing energy, G, must be considered. The simplest way to consider these interactions is via die regular solution model. In this case... 

Density Functional Models. Methods in which the energy is evaluated as a function of the Electron Density. Electron Correlation is taken into account explicitly by incorporating into the Hamiltonian terms which derive from exact solutions of idealized many-electron systems. 

---