3
$\begingroup$

Let's say I hypothesize that a graph of $\ln K$ vs. $1/T$ has a slope of $-∆G^\circ/R$ and a $y$-intercept of $0$. I prove it simply:

$$∆G^\circ = -RT\ln K \quad\to\quad \ln K = -\frac{∆G^\circ}{RT}$$

This matches the linear form $y = mx + b$. Thus, plotting $\ln K$ vs. $1/T$ would have a slope $m = -∆G^\circ/R$ and a $y$-intercept $b = 0$.

However, I understand that a van't Hoff plot defines a graph of $\ln K$ vs. $1/T$ to have a slope of $-ΔH^\circ/R$ and a $y$-intercept of $∆S^\circ/R$. It is clear from the relation $∆G^\circ = ∆H^\circ - TΔS^\circ$ that my final equation is thermodynamically equivalent to the van't Hoff equation. I do not disagree that

$$\ln K = -\frac{∆H^\circ}{RT} + \frac{∆S^\circ}{R},$$

but if I were to experimentally measure temperature and calculate the equilibrium constant temperature, why should I expect the y-intercept to be $∆S^\circ/R$ as defined by van't Hoff rather than $0$ as I defined above? Why should I expect the slope to be $-ΔH^\circ/R$ instead of $-ΔG^\circ/R$? What makes the van't Hoff equation match experimentally determined values over the equation $\ln K = -∆G^\circ/(RT)$?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The fact of the matter is that the differential version of your equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\ln{K}}{\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)} = -\frac{\Delta G^\circ}{R}$$

is not exact (because $\Delta G^\circ$ is a function of $T$) while the form of the van't Hoff equation involving differentials

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\ln{K}}{\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)} = -\frac{\Delta H^\circ}{R}$$

is exact. Moreover, the derivation of the van't Hoff equation properly takes into account the fact that, in varying temperature $T$, the initial and final states for $\Delta G^\circ$ are constrained to be at 1 bar. So, in the van't Hoff development, the temperature derivative of $\Delta G^\circ$ is exactly given by

$$\frac{\Delta G^\circ}{\mathrm{d}T} = -\Delta S^\circ$$

This important constraint is not even addressed in your approach.

Finally, do you have a reference where it asserts that the intercept at $(1/T) \to 0$ is supposed to be $\Delta S^\circ/R$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I took the intercept to be ∆Sº/R as 1/T approaches 0 just from the linear form of the van't Hoff equation, ln(K) = -∆Hº/RT + ∆Sº/R. If this is in y=mx+b form, b is ∆Sº/R. I guess my reference is the Wikipedia page for the van't Hoff equation, which mentions it a few times (such as in the "van't Hoff plot" section). Is this not an accurate assertion to make? $\endgroup$ – Mateen Kasim Apr 17 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, if you take the tangent line to the curve of ln(K) vs 1/T at the point (T*, K*), the intercept is $$\ln{K^*}+\frac{\Delta S^0(T^*)}{R}$$ $\endgroup$ – Chet Miller Apr 17 at 17:17
6
$\begingroup$

In the linear form $y = mx + b$, both $m$ and $b$ are constants, i.e. they don't depend on $x$. On the other hand, $\Delta G^\circ$ definitely depends on the temperature (and consequently on its inverse $1/T$). So if you plot a function $$f(x) = m x$$ where $m$ is not a constant but a function dependent on $x$, you might get something unexpected. In your case, $x$ is $1/T$ and $$m = -\frac{\Delta H}{R} + \frac{T \Delta S}{R}$$

The $y$-intercept corresponds to an infinitely high temperature where $-\frac{\Delta H}{R} \times \frac{1}{T}$ tends to zero and $\frac{T \Delta S}{R} \times \frac{1}{T}$ cancels to be just $\frac{\Delta S}{R}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't ∆Gº a constant defined at 298 K? The relation ∆Gº=-RTlnK gives the standard change in free energy (i.e. 298 K, 100 kPa, 1M), so wouldn't this value be constant for a given reaction? Plus, if we were talking about non-standard values, doesn't change in enthalpy depend on temperature as well? $\endgroup$ – Mateen Kasim Apr 16 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MateenKasim You are varying the temperature. The Gibbs energy and the equilibrium constant are significantly temperature-dependent. The enthalpy is temperature-dependent too, but to a much lesser degree. $\endgroup$ – Karsten Theis Apr 17 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ If you want to see the rigorous treatment, look at the answer posted by @Chet_Miller. $\endgroup$ – Karsten Theis Apr 17 at 4:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.