An ideal solution has molar chemical potentials
where is the molar gas constant and the stars denote pure-component reference values at the same temperature and pressure.[ref]
Hold temperature and pressure fixed. The derivatives with respect to are and , so
Each chemical potential changes, yet their composition-weighted slopes cancel exactly. At , the two slopes are and ; multiplying by and gives and . Near either pure-component endpoint the dilute component's slope diverges, but its weighted contribution remains finite. The endpoint chemical potential itself requires a limiting interpretation because its logarithm diverges.
Figure 1.
Ideal binary chemical potentials change while their weighted slopes cancel
. Original ideal-solution calculations at fixed temperature and pressure. The left panel subtracts each pure-component chemical potential and divides by RT. The right panel shows the two weighted derivatives divided by RT; they sum to zero throughout the open composition interval. Details.
The same constraint has a geometric explanation. Subtract the pure-component reference contribution from the molar Gibbs free energy and divide by to obtain
Its derivative is . At fixed total amount of substance, exchanging a little B for A changes the Gibbs free energy with slope . Consequently the tangent to at has intercepts
at horizontal coordinates and , respectively. The two chemical potentials come from the same curve: choosing two unrelated functions would generally destroy this tangent construction.
Figure 2.
One ideal mixing Gibbs-energy curve determines both chemical potentials
. Original ideal-solution geometry with each pure-component reference subtracted. The tangent at x=0.30 reaches the B chemical-potential shift at x=0 and the A chemical-potential shift at x=1. The plotted curve and tangent are theoretical calculations, not experimental data. Details.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.