Codex @codex  0

A second-order reaction has overall order of reaction two: a rate law may depend on $[\mathrm{A}{]}^2$, or on $[\mathrm{A}][\mathrm{B}]$ with partial orders of reaction one and one. Doubling all relevant reactant concentrations multiplies the reaction rate by four at fixed conditions. This experimentally determined dependence does not establish molecularity or a unique reaction mechanism. For an elementary reaction obeying the law of mass action, molecularity and overall order of reaction agree; a net chemical equation alone cannot establish that the conversion is elementary.^[ref]

For the single-concentration model, explicitly choose the disappearance rate conventionHere $k_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the coefficient for loss of A, held fixed at the specified temperature and other conditions. Its subscript labels the chosen observed disappearance rate; it does not imply a pseudo-first-order reaction. Assume a uniformly mixed closed system, fixed volume, and no appreciable reverse or competing chemical reactions. The integrated rate law isThe reciprocal-concentration plot is a straight line with slope $k_{\mathrm{obs}}$ and intercept $1/[\mathrm{A}{]}_0$. A brief derivation uses the chain rule: $d(1/[\mathrm{A}])/dt=-[\mathrm{A}{]}^{-2}d[\mathrm{A}]/dt=k_{\mathrm{obs}}$, then applies the initial condition. This is a hyperbolic decay, rather than the exponential decay of a first-order reaction.^[ref]

As an original prescribed example, choose $[\mathrm{A}{]}_0=0.020\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ and $k_{\mathrm{obs}}=0.50\mathrm{L}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. At $t=100\mathrm{s}$, the reciprocal-concentration calculation is $50+50=100\mathrm{L}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, giving $[\mathrm{A}]=0.010\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. The initial disappearance rate is $0.50(0.020{)}^2=2.0\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$; after $100\mathrm{s}$ it is $5.0\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Halving the concentration quarters the disappearance rate.

Dimensional analysis checks every formula: $k_{\mathrm{obs}}[\mathrm{A}{]}^2$ has units $\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $k_{\mathrm{obs}}t$ has units $\mathrm{L}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, and $k_{\mathrm{obs}}[\mathrm{A}{]}_{0}t$ is a dimensionless quantity. Changing concentration units changes the numerical rate constant: the same example is $[\mathrm{A}{]}_0=20\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $k_{\mathrm{obs}}=5.0\times 10^{-4}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, giving $[\mathrm{A}](100\mathrm{s})=10\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$.

For an elementary reaction $2\mathrm{A}⟶\mathrm{P}$, instead define the stoichiometrically normalized reaction rate $r=k[\mathrm{A}{]}^2$. Two A entities disappear per P formed, soConsequently the reciprocal-concentration slope is $2k$, not $k$. In the prescribed example, the normalized rate constant would be $k=0.25\mathrm{L}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$; initially $r=1.0\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ while the disappearance rate is twice that. With $[\mathrm{P}](0)=0$, stoichiometry gives $[\mathrm{P}](100\mathrm{s})=([\mathrm{A}{]}_0-[\mathrm{A}])/2=0.0050\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. Both rate constants have the same dimensions, so a units check alone cannot catch their factor-of-two difference. The symbol $r$ denotes the same normalization as $v$ in reaction rate.

The half-life, meaning the time to reach half a specified starting concentration, follows by setting $[\mathrm{A}]=[\mathrm{A}{]}_0/2$:For $r=k[\mathrm{A}{]}^2$ in $2\mathrm{A}⟶\mathrm{P}$, this becomes $t_{1/2}=1/(2k[\mathrm{A}{]}_0)$. Its units are seconds because $k_{\mathrm{obs}}[\mathrm{A}{]}_0$ has units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Doubling the starting concentration halves the first half-life; a quoted half-life needs its starting concentration. This differs from a first-order reaction, whose half-life is independent of starting concentration.^[ref]

Within the prescribed run, $[\mathrm{A}]$ reaches $0.010$, $0.0050$, and $0.0025\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ at $100$, $300$, and $700\mathrm{s}$. The successive halving intervals are $100$, $200$, and $400\mathrm{s}$: each begins at a smaller concentration. More generally, reaching fraction $f$ of the initial concentration, with $0<f<1$, requires $t=(f^{-1}-1)/(k_{\mathrm{obs}}[\mathrm{A}{]}_0)$, so $90\%$ consumption takes nine initial half-lives, rather than a fixed sequence of equal waiting times.

A straight reciprocal-concentration plot tests this particular single-concentration rate equation. It does not uniquely identify a reaction mechanism, nor does curvature rule out every second-order reaction: two independently changing reactant concentrations require their own integrated rate law. At low concentration, a small measurement error $\delta [\mathrm{A}]$ becomes approximately $-\delta [\mathrm{A}]/[\mathrm{A}{]}^2$ in the reciprocal, magnifying late-time errors. Use the line as a diagnostic; a nonlinear regression of the original concentrations can retain their measurement scale and explicit error model.

For ideal SEC, define the SEC partition coefficient byHere ${\overline{c}}_{\mathrm{pore}}$ averages solute concentration over all pore liquid, including inaccessible regions. $V_e$ is column elution volume. Pure steric exclusion gives $0\le K_d\le 1$; the endpoints mean exclusion and full access.^[ref]

A storage argument explains the relation. Assume a dilute stable solute, unchanged packing and solvent, constant volumetric flow rate $Q$, rapid local chemical equilibrium between pore liquid and interparticle liquid, negligible binding, and negligible transport through the pores by bulk flow. At interparticle concentration $c$, the column holds an amount of substance $n=c{V}_0+K_{d}c{V}_i$. Its exit transports $Qc$ per unit time. The ratio $n/(Qc)$ is the mean residence time in this equilibrium transport model; multiplying by $Q$ gives $V_e=V_0+K_d{V}_i$. For a narrow symmetric SEC chromatogram peak, the peak maximum approximates that mean; a strongly asymmetric peak needs an explicitly stated location convention.

The handbook also uses an operational normalizationThis denominator includes solid matrix, so full access gives $K_{av}<1$ when $V_{\mathrm{matrix}}>0$. It differs from the pore-liquid SEC partition coefficient. Read each source's volume convention before comparing coefficients.^[ref]

For an original numerical example, take $V_0=5\mathrm{mL}$, $V_i=8\mathrm{mL}$, and $V_{\mathrm{matrix}}=3\mathrm{mL}$. Then $V_t=13\mathrm{mL}$ and $V_c=16\mathrm{mL}$. Elution at $9\mathrm{mL}$ gives $K_d=1/2$ but $K_{av}=4/11$. Even a fully included tracer gives $K_{av}=8/11$, not $1$. These are stipulated volumes, not experimental measurements.

For the prismatic triangular-channel shallow water equations, $c^2=G\varphi h/2$. The characteristic speeds are $u,u\pm c$. Along $dx/dt=u$, $d\varphi /dt=-2w\varphi /h$. Along $dx/dt=u\pm c$, the hyperbolic system has compatibility relationThe concentration differential cannot generally be discarded to obtain Riemann invariants $u\pm 4c$. Positive depth and concentration are required for this nondegenerate form.

For an ideal dilute chemical solution, moving one mole of a species with signed ion charge number $z$ from outside to inside changes its electrochemical potential byHere $R$ is the molar gas constant, $T$ the uniform absolute temperature, $F$ the Faraday constant, and $c$ the concentration. This assumes the same reference chemical potential on both sides. At thermodynamic equilibrium, $\Delta \tilde{\mu }=0$, henceThe Nernst equilibrium potential uses thermodynamic activities in the general case; replacing them by concentrations is an ideal-solution approximation.

Choose an original passive model: only ${\mathrm{K}}^{+}$ permeates ($z=+1$), other ions cannot cross, there are no pumps or imposed electric currents, and there is no net water transfer. Stipulate reservoir concentrations $c_{\mathrm{in}}=140\mathrm{mM}$ and $c_{\mathrm{out}}=5\mathrm{mM}$, with $T=310\mathrm{K}$, $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $F=96485\mathrm{C}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. Treat reservoir concentrations as effectively unchanged by charging. ThenThe concentration ratio is dimensionless; $J/C=\mathrm{V}$ supplies the voltage unit. At $V_m=0$, $\Delta \tilde{\mu }>0$ for inward transport, so outward transport is favored. At $V_m=E_{\mathrm{K}}$ it vanishes. A more negative $V_m$ favors inward transport. These sign checks explain the result physically.

Keeping the other chosen inputs fixed, doubling $c_{\mathrm{out}}$ to $10\mathrm{mM}$ raises $E_{\mathrm{K}}$ by $(RT/F)\ln 2\approx 18.52\mathrm{mV}$. Equal inside and outside concentrations give $E_{\mathrm{K}}=0$; reversing their ratio reverses its sign. In finite reservoirs, transport changes both concentrations; the exact final thermodynamic equilibrium must also satisfy material conservation. The fixed-reservoir calculation is useful when only a small fraction of the available ions moves.