0
$\begingroup$

Consider a closed system of constant volume $V$, constant pressure $P$, temperature $T$, and Gibbs energy $G$ that is in thermal and mechanical equilibrium with surroundings. It is filled with $N$ particles of one type.

We divide the system into two components: component 1 which has volume $V_1$, pressure $P$, temperature $T$, particle count $N_1$, chemical potential $\mu_1$, Gibbs energy $G_1$, and component 2 which has volume $V-V_1=V_2$, pressure $P$, temperature $T$, particle count $N-N_1=N_2$, chemical potential $\mu_2$, Gibbs energy $G-G_1=G_2$.

The total change in Gibbs energy for this two-component closed system is

$$dG=dG_1+dG_2=\mu_1 dN_1+\mu_2 dN_2=\mu_1 dN_1-\mu_2 dN_1=(\mu_1-\mu_2)dN_1$$

Suppose the system is initially not in chemical equilibrium $\mu_1>\mu_2$, it will decrease the particle count in component 1 $dN_1<0$ until $dG=0$.

However, I am not sure how $G_1$ and $G_2$ change as the system approaches chemical equilibrium. In terms of Gibbs energy, chemical potential is defined as

$$\mu=\left(\frac{\partial G}{\partial N}\right)_{T,P}=\frac{G}{N}$$

Since $G$ and $N$ are extensive quantities, it follows that $\mu$ is an intensive quantity. This means the value of $\mu$ is independent of particle count. For example, even if the particle count is doubled, $\mu$ stays the same.

So I am not sure how it is possible for $\mu_1$ to decrease as $N_1$ decreases if chemical potential is an intensive quantity.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The chemical potential of component $1$ in a mixture with component 2 is $$\tag{1} \mu_1 = \left(\frac{\partial G}{\partial N_1}\right)_{T,P,N_2} \color{red}\neq \frac{G}{N} $$ Notice that equality you wrote applies only in a one-component system. The relationship between the chemical potentials, the Gibbs energy of the mixture and the number of moles is $$\tag{2} N_1 \mu_1 + N_2 \mu_2 = (N_1+N_2) g = G $$ A simple example can be given for the case of an ideal mixture. Then $$\tag{3} \mu_i = g_i + RT \ln \frac{N_i}{N_1+N_2} $$ where $g_i=G_i/N_i$ is the molar Gibbs energy of pure $i$ at the same temperature and pressure as the mixture. This shows that the chemical potential changes with composition.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. To be clear, equation 2 says that the total Gibbs energy of the two-component system is the average of chemical potentials of each component (assuming that each component is filled with particles of one type)? I’m not sure how equation 3 is derived. Can you give more details? $\endgroup$
    – Jimmy Yang
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JimmyYang (i) Yes, your reading of Eq 2 is correct. In fact, the first equation in your post is the differential of my Eq 2. (ii) Eq 3 is a special result for ideal mixtures, namely mixtures whose enthalpy is $H=n_1 h_1 + n_2 h_2$, and their entropy is $S = N_1 s_1+N_2 s_2 - R(N_1\ln\frac{N_1}{N_1+N_2} + N_2 \ln\frac{N_2}{N_1+N_2})$, where $h_i$ and $s_i$ are the properties of the pure components. Ideal gas mixtures and ideal solutions (solutions of chemically similar molecules) satisfy these equations. Set $G = H-T S$ and you will get to Eq (3). $\endgroup$
    – Themis
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ I see. If each component is filled with a different particle type, then the total Gibbs energy is $G=N_1\mu_1+N_2\mu_2$? I still have doubts about the $N_1+N_2$ factor. Also, the differential for equation 2 is $\mu_1 dN_1+\mu_2 dN_2=GdN_1+N_1dG+GdN_2+N_2dG$ which reduces to $(\mu_1-\mu_2)dN_1=(N_1+N_2)dG=NdG$. I don't see how it results in my equation $dG=(\mu_1-\mu_2)dN_1$. $\endgroup$
    – Jimmy Yang
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 20:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (i) You are right (I corrected it), I should have said $(N_1+N_2)g = G$. (ii) According to the Gibbs-Duhem equation (which is easy to prove), $N_1 d\mu_1+N_2 d\mu_2 = 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Themis
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Is equation 3 intensive or extensive? I understand that $g_i$ is intensive but not sure about $RT \ln \frac{N_i}{N_1+N_2}$ term. I don't think that equation is intensive since it changes as $N_i$ changes? $\endgroup$
    – Jimmy Yang
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 21:54
1
$\begingroup$

Your definition of the chemical potential should be $$\mu_1=\left(\frac{\partial G}{\partial N_1}\right)_{T,P,N_2}$$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, I forgot to write constant $N_2$. $\endgroup$
    – Themis
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 16:07

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