Gibbs free energy in standard state vs. equilibrium
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.
I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:
On the one hand:
One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.
On the other hand:
The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.
If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).
Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks!
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
asked 14 hours ago
user76122user76122
91
91
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
$endgroup$
As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.
So you might want to think of it as three statements:
- For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$
- At equilibrium $Delta G=0$
- At equilibrium $Q=K$
The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second statement follows from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
answered 9 hours ago
Night WriterNight Writer
2,453223
2,453223
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
$endgroup$
What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
answered 9 hours ago
theoristtheorist
2388
2388
add a comment |
add a comment |
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user76122 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
11 hours ago