Saturday, September 29, 2018

physical chemistry - Why is the rate of a reaction proportional to the concentrations of reactants raised to their stoichiometric coefficients?



Consider a gaseous state elementary reaction aA(g)+bB(g)kfkbcC(g)+dD(g)


I know that for this reaction, ΔG=ΔG+RTln(PcCPdDPaAPbB)


Now, if K=(PcCPdDPaAPbB),


then ΔG=ΔG+RTlnK.


Now, how can we say that K=kbkf


and rf=kfPaAPbB and rb=kfPcCPdD where rf and rb are rates of forward and backward reaction as assumed in this answer.


I want that to know that how can one prove rigorously that rf=kfPaAPbB and rb=kbPcCPdD.



Answer




I want that to know that how can one prove rigorously that rf=kfPaAPbB and rb=kbPcCPdD.




I might try to give you some intuition to back up that, for a given (elementary) reaction AkB, the reaction rate r can be written as


r=dPBdt=dPAdtPA.


(Observe that the second equality above is true due to PA+PB=constant.) First, for an ideal gas, PA=nAVRT. This means that PAn for fixed temperature and volume.


Let's say the reaction happens as a random process. That is to say that, for every time interval Δt, we have a probability per unit time p of having a single molecule A turning into B. If we wait longer, proportionally more molecules will turn. We'll thus have, for initially nA molecules of A, after Δt seconds,


ΔnB=pnAΔt.


This means that, in the time interval Δt, the population of B goes from 0 to ΔnB (assuming no B initially). From the stoichiometry of the reaction, ΔnB=ΔnA (i.e., there's conservation of moles).


Thus,


ΔnBΔt=ΔnAΔt=pnA.


After taking the limit of Δt0 and multiplying by 1V (i.e., dividing by volume), we get



dnBVdt=d[B]dt=pnAV=p[A],


where [A] and [B] stand for the concentrations of A and B, respectively. Since, again for an ideal gas, [A]=PART, we get


r=dPBdt=dPAdt=pPA,


where the proportionality constant is the probability of reaction per unit time.


No comments:

Post a Comment

periodic trends - Comparing radii in lithium, beryllium, magnesium, aluminium and sodium ions

Apparently the of last four, MgX2+ is closest in radius to LiX+. Is this true, and if so, why would a whole larger shell ($\ce{...