Abstract
van’t Hoff and Clausius–Clapeyron equations correspond to chemical and phase equilibria, respectively, but the Clausius–Clapeyron equation can be also a result of the application of van’t Hoff equation to the liquid–vapor or solid–vapor phase equilibrium of pure substances. Moreover, the application of van’t Hoff to gas–liquid and solid–liquid equilibrium data makes it possible to obtain enthalpies of dissolution. Examples based on published experimental data are included for all cases.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Equations
Jacobus Henricus van’t Hoff (1852–1911), the winner of the first Nobel prize in chemistry, explained in his 1884 book Etudes de dynamique chimique the relation between chemical equilibrium and temperature [1, 2]. (Nomenclature is summarized in Table 1.) The two forms of the van’t Hoff equation in Table 2 quantify the (van’t Hoff) Le Chatelier principle, the displacement of the equilibrium to reactants or products when the equilibrium conditions vary:
-
An equilibrium constant \(K>1\) corresponds to an equilibrium with formation of products from the initial amounts of substance. On the contrary, for \(K<1\) there is formation of reactants.
-
In an endothermic reaction the enthalpy change \(\Delta H\) is positive and a temperature increase displaces the equilibrium towards the formation of products, vice versa for an exothermic reaction.
In a separate development, B. P. E. Clapeyron (1799–1864) related the variation of the equilibrium pressure with temperature in terms of the entropy and volume differences between the two phases in equilibrium [3]. R. J. E. Clausius (1822–1888) elaborated on this and obtained the Clausius–Clapeyron equations in Table 2 for the equilibrium between a condensed phase, liquid or solid, of a pure substance, and its vapor, in this case \(\Delta H\) is the evaporation or sublimation enthalpy, a positive quantity [4].
The enthalpies of reaction and vaporization are functions of temperature that can be calculated with the differential forms of van’t Hoff (VH) and Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) equations in Table 2 at any T using numerical estimates of \(\text {d}\ln K/\text {d}T\) or \(\text {d}\ln P/\text {d}T\) to obtain \(\Delta H\). On the other hand, the integrated versions of VH and CC equations are linear models based on a constant \(\Delta H\) approximation that yield a single value of it from a linear regression of multiple \(K\left( T\right)\) or \(P\left( T\right)\) values over a temperature range. Not only do these equations have this inaccuracy but also the overuse of linearization in the teaching of chemistry has been questioned on statistical grounds in Refs. [5, 6]. Despite that, the integrated forms prevail in textbooks and research works, as they are easy to apply, usually fit very well the experimental data, and give consistent results.
The current article is based on the integrated forms because they make it easy to explain the connection between VH and CC models, but anyway the application examples were checked as follows. For the gas-phase equilibrium of the dehydrogenation reaction of methylcyclohexane to toluene the VH data reduction shown in Fig. 1 yields \(\Delta H=212.6\,\textrm{kJ}\,\textrm{mol}^{-1}\), in agreement with the standard value of \(\Delta H^{\circ }=205\,\textrm{kJ}\,\textrm{mol}^{-1}\) [7, 8]. Also, in the ebullition and sublimation examples of Figs. 2, 3, and 4, the CC equation fits very well the saturation pressure data, and \(\Delta H\) in Fig. 3 differs by less than 10% from measured experimental values.
There is an obvious similarity between the van’t Hoff (VH) and Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) equations in Table 2: in CC the \(\ln \left( \right)\) vs. 1/T pattern of VH reappears, with ebullition or sublimation \(\Delta H\) in the place of reaction \(\Delta H\), and K is replaced by P. This analogy between VH and CC models has been overlooked in textbooks and articles, except perhaps in the applications of the van’t Hoff equation to liquid–vapor equilibria proposed in Ref. [12], and in the treatment of Henry’s law constant dependency on temperature in Ref. [13].
In order to show the VH–CC equivalence the current work puts aside the usual Clausius–Clapeyron deduction and instead it explains in the next section how to deduce it from the van’t Hoff equation treating the phases in vapor–liquid and solid–vapor equilibria as reacting species. In the next two sections the application of this procedure for the estimation of enthalpies of dissolution is explained for gas–liquid, and solid–liquid equilibria.
Transformation
The van’t Hoff equation comes from the fundamental relation
(see nomenclature in Table 1) applied to the definition of chemical equilibrium constant
where \(\Delta G\) is the change of Gibbs energy associated with the reaction, to obtain
which integrated yields
where \(\Delta H\) is the (constant) reaction enthalpy change; Eqs. (3) and (4) are the two forms of the van’t Hoff equation in Table 2.
The equilibrium constant K governs the composition of the system through the expression
where \(\nu _{i}\) represents the stoichiometric coefficient of species i. The terms \(a_{i}={\bar{f}}_{i}/f_{i}^{\circ }\) are the activities, while the fugacities, \({\bar{f}}_{i}\), depend on the system composition. In the gas phase the common ideal gas simplification implies \({\bar{f}}_{i}=P_{i}=y_{i}P\), while the standard fugacity is \(f_{i}^{\circ }=P^{\circ }=1\,\textrm{bar}\). In this way, for the gas-phase equilibrium example, the dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane to toluene
Equation (5) becomes
The equilibrium constants K in Fig. 1 were calculated with the experimental partial pressures available in Refs. [7, 8].
The Clausius–Clapeyron equation appears when liquid and vapor phases are treated as reactant and product in a chemical reaction so that vapor–liquid equilibrium (VLE) of a pure substance becomes
where L and V identify the liquid and vapor phases, respectively. Using Eq. (5) the equivalent equilibrium constant for this “reaction” is
For the liquid, which is a condensed phase \(a_{\textrm{L}}\thickapprox 1\), while for the vapor phase
where f is the fugacity of the ideal gas pure phase, and \(P^{\circ }\) is the standard reference pressure, 1 bar. By replacing the activities \(a_{\textrm{L}}\)and \(a_{\textrm{V}}\) the equilibrium constant becomes
which leads to
where \(\Delta H\) is the vaporization enthalpy. The integrated form of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation,
(with a constant \(\Delta H\) value approximation) is much more common. Both Clausius–Clapeyron forms are also valid for the vapor–solid equilibrium in the sublimation of a pure substance
(S represents the solid phase), given that \(a_{\textrm{S}}\thickapprox 1\) and Eq. (10) remains valid for the vapor phase, leading again to an equilibrium constant \(K=P/{1\,\textrm{bar}}\).
Gas–liquid equilibrium
The dissolution of a gas (i) in a non-volatile solvent can be written as the “reaction”
where the gas becomes a solute i in the liquid solution (G and L represent the gas and liquid phases, respectively). For this case the equilibrium constant is written as an infinite dilution limit,
because the concentration of the dissolved gas in the liquid tends to 0. Also,
-
For the gas phase \(\left( f_{i}^{\circ }\right) _{\textrm{G}}=P^{\circ }=1\,\textrm{bar}\).
-
Equilibrium between gaseous and dissolved i implies equal fugacities, i.e., \(\left( {\bar{f}}_{i}\right) _{\textrm{L}}=\left( {\bar{f}}_{i}\right) _{\textrm{G}}\).
-
The solute’s standard fugacity in the liquid phase, \(f_{i}^{\circ }\), cannot be set with the Lewis–Randall rule because the gas i does not exist as pure liquid at the equilibrium conditions. Instead, following Henry’s law
$$\begin{aligned} \left( f_{i}^{\circ }\right) _{\textrm{L}}={\mathcal {H}}_{ij}, \end{aligned}$$where \({\mathcal {H}}_{ij}\) is the Henry’s constant at equilibrium temperature (not to be confused with the enthalpy).
Replacing all the above in Eq. (14) it becomes
which replaced in Eqs. (3) and (4) yields
where \(\Delta H\) is the enthalpy of dissolution of i, from the gas to the liquid phase [13,14,15,16].
Equation (15) follows the pattern of van’t Hoff and Clausius–Clapeyron (Eqs. 4 and 12, but with a positive sign in the right-hand side), allowing the estimation of \(\Delta H\) from experimental data, in fact semiempirical representations of \(\ln {\mathcal {H}}_{ij}\) include 1/T terms [13, 17]. Here, for example, data of carbon dioxide (i) concentration in water was reduced to Henry’s law (Ref. [18], Figs. 5, 6, Table 3)
by linear regression at each temperature to obtain the enthalpy of dissolution of the gas from the slope of the linear fit in Fig. 6. The negative value, \(\Delta H=-11.75\,\textrm{kJ}\,\textrm{mol}^{-1}\), is explained with the Le Chatelier principle: the solubility of the gas decreases with the temperature because the dissolution is exothermic.
Solid–liquid equilibrium
In this case the precipitation of the pure components of a binary liquid mixture can be described as the equilibrium
between the pure solid phase and i dissolved in the liquid, with
because the activity for the pure solid is \(a_{i,\textrm{S}}=1\). The estimation of the activity, that is \(x\gamma\), from the data is commonly described in textbooks starting with the equality of liquid and solid fugacities
where the symbol f represents the fugacity of pure component, while \({\bar{f}}\) is used for the fugacity of the component in solution. It is tempting to simplify this expression by canceling out \(f_{i}^{\textrm{L}}\) and \(f_{i}^{\textrm{S}}\), but it would only be valid at \(T_{\textrm{fus}}\), the fusion temperature of pure i; instead
where the ratio \(\left( f_{i}^{\textrm{L}}/f_{i}^{\textrm{S}}\right)\) for the pure solid is deduced by applying a three-stage integration path to \(\text {d}G=RT\text {d}\ln f\), \(T\rightarrow T_{\textrm{fus}}\) as solid, solid\(\rightarrow\)liquid at \(T_{\textrm{fus}}\), and \(T_{\textrm{fus}}\rightarrow T\) as liquid to obtain
where \(T_{\textrm{fus}}\) and \(\Delta _{\textrm{fus}}H\) are the fusion temperature and enthalpy of the pure solid. The term \(\Delta C=C_{\textrm{L}}-C_{\textrm{S}}\) is the difference of the specific heat capacities of liquid and solid phases. The enthalpy of dilution of pure solid i in the mixture is obtained by replacing this K in the van’t Hoff differential equation (Eq. 3)
which is a function of the mole fraction and the equilibrium temperature.
An example of the application of van’t Hoff equation to solid–liquid equilibrium data is given in Fig. 7 for the mixture naphthalene (1) + m-dinitrobenzene (2) [19]. First, the data was divided into two series, one for the equilibrium with solid m-dinitrobenzene (left side, \(i=2\)), and other for the naphthalene (right side, \(i=1\)), while \(\ln \left( x\gamma \right)\) was calculated from Eq. (19) using the properties of each pure solid i. Then, these values were fitted to polynomial functions of \(1000\,\textrm{K}/T\), which provided the derivatives in the right-hand side of Eq. (20). In agreement with the Le Chatelier principle it was found that the dilution is endothermic, i.e., \(\Delta H>0\), as the solubility of both components increase with temperature; also, as expected \(\Delta H \rightarrow \Delta _{\textrm{fus}}H\) in the pure component limit.
Digressions
The representation of chemical equilibrium experimental data in \(\ln K\) vs. 1/T coordinates is known as the van’t Hoff plot, where \(\Delta H / R\) is the slope of the best fit line. In practice this slope is the coefficient of the independent variable (1/T) obtained from the linear regression of the data, which in general purpose software is based on matrix operations where the small values of 1/T can lead to the formation of ill-conditioned matrix systems [20]. To prevent such problems, the current work uses the common transformation \(1000\,\textrm{K}/T\) as the independent variable in the regressions, as shown in the figures, although it is not mandatory. Another option is to replace the linear regression with a minimization of the sum of discrepancies between experimental and calculated data by means of a general non-linear optimization function [6, 21]. Also, a deep analysis of the regression results falls beyond the pedagogical scope of this work, although the statistics of linearization results have been studied in the context of chemistry applications in Refs. [5, 6, 21].
A general form of the equilibrium constant is given in Eq. (5) to ensure a dimensionless K, avoiding the well-known problems associated with the use of equilibrium constants with units; see, for example, Ref. [22]. Despite this, Eqs. (11, 12, 15) include logarithms of quantities with pressure units, \(\ln \left( P\right)\) and \(\ln \left( {\mathcal {H}}_{ij}\right)\), but in these cases units of P or \({\mathcal {H}}_{ij}\) are not relevant.
-
In the differential forms, such as Eq. (11), the differential eliminates any conversion factor, for example \(\text {d}\ln \left( P\times 100\,\textrm{kPa}/1\,\textrm{bar}\right) =\text {d}\ln \left( P\right)\).
-
In the integral forms, such as Eq. (12), any conversion factor is adsorbed by the integration constant C.
Also, the differential form \(\text {d}\ln P/\text {d}T\) makes it possible to obtain vaporization or sublimation \(\Delta H\) values from vapor pressure \(P\left( T\right)\) models, such as the August or Antoine equations, regardless of their pressure units.
A definite integration of Eq. (11) from a reference temperature \(T_{0}\) yields
where \(P_{0}\) is the equilibrium pressure at \(T_{0}\). Given that the entropy of the phase change at \(T_{0}\) is \(\Delta S=\Delta H/T_{0}\) , its value can be estimated from the intercept in the linear regression of \(\ln \left( P/P_{0}\right)\) vs. 1/T. Apparently, it can be resumed as [11]
but there is a caveat: in this expression the value of \(\Delta S\) changes with the pressure units, which are included in the intercept. Hence, Eq. (21) is preferable, and the results should specify the values of \(T_{0}\) and \(P_{0}\).
Henry’s law is also written as \(x_{i}=P_{i}{\mathcal {H}}_{ij}\), or an equivalent expression [15]. In such cases the van’t Hoff analysis remains valid, but the values of Henry’s constant should be converted to the form of Eq. (16).
Conclusion
Thermal effects on both chemical and phase equilibria can be described in terms of the van’t Hoff equation, which leads to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation. However, this deduction route requires itself a formulation of the reaction equilibrium and therefore it is preferable to use it as a reinforcement of the usual explanation of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation. Analogously to the pure substance equilibria, the enthalpy changes implicit in the dissolution of gases or solids in liquids can be estimated by applying the van’t Hoff equation to the \(K\left( T\right)\) data. It is expected that the formulations proposed in this work will serve for both teaching and experimental analysis of phase equilibria.
Data availability
The author declares that the data supporting the examples of this study are available in its Supplementary Information files and cited references.
References
Van Houten J (2001) A century of chemical dynamics traced through the Nobel prizes (1901) Jacobus van’t Hoff. J Chem Ed 78(12):1570–1573
Jacobus H. van’t Hoff - biographical (2023) Nobel Prize Outreach AB. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1901/hoff/biographical/. Accessed 1 Dec 2023
Wisniak J (2000) Benoit Paul Emile Clapeyron: a short bibliographical sketch. Chem Ed 5(2):83–87
Wisniak J (2001) Historical development of the vapor pressure equation from Dalton to Antoine. J Phase Equil 22(6):622–630
McCluskey AR (2023) Is there still a place for linearization in the chemistry curriculum? J Chem Educ 100(11):4174–4176
Perrin CL (2017) Linear or nonlinear least-squares analysis of kinetic data? J Chem Educ 94:669–672
Schildhauer T, Newson E, St Müller (2001) The equilibrium constant for the methylcyclohexane-toluene system. J Cat 198(2):355–358
Schildhauer TJ (2001) Untersuchungen zur verbesserung des wärmeübergangs in katalytischen festbettreaktoren für energiespeicheranwendungen. PhD thesis, ETH, Zürich
Benecke TP, Narasigadu C, Iwarere SA, Nelson WM, Ramjugernath D (2019) Vapor-liquid equilibrium measurements of ether alcohol blends for investigation on reformulated gas. J Chem Eng Data 64(1):115–123
Chickos JS, Acree WE Jr (2023) Phase transition enthalpy measurements of organic and organometallic compounds. In: Linstrom PJ, Mallard WG (eds) NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg MD, National Institutes of Science and Technology
Goldfarb JL, Suuberg EM (2010) Vapor pressures and sublimation enthalpies of seven heteroatomic aromatic hydrocarbons measured using the Knudsen effusion technique. J Chem Thermodyn 42(10):781–786
Deiters UK (2012) The isothermal van’t Hoff equation for phase equilibria—a forgotten relation? Fluid Phase Equil 336:22–27
Gmehling J, Kleiber M, Kolbe B, Rarey J (2019) Chemical thermodynamics for process simulation, 2nd edn. Wiley VCH, Weinheim
Sander R (1999) Compilation of Henry’s law constants for inorganic and organic species of potential importance in environmental chemistry. Max-Planck Institute of Chemistry. http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/sander/res/henry.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2023
Sander R (2015) Compilation of Henry’s law constants (version 4.0) for water as solvent. Atmos Chem Phys 15:4399–4981
Carrero JI (2022) Beyond Henry’s law in the gas-liquid equilibrium. ChemTexts 8(1):1–13
Harvey AH (1996) Semiempirical correlation for Henry’s constants over large temperature ranges. AIChE J 42(5):1491–1494
Kiepe J, Horstmann S, Fischer K, Gmehling J (2002) Experimental determination and prediction of gas solubility data for CO2 + H2O mixtures containing NaCl or KCl at temperatures between 313 and 393 K and pressures up to 10 MPa. Ind Eng Chem Res 41(17):4393–4398
Kremann R (1904) Über den einflußvon substitution in den komponenten binärer lösungsgleichgewichtel. Monatsh Chem 25:1271–1292. In: Acree WE (2007) IUPAC-NIST solubility database NIST standard reference database 106. https://srdata.nist.gov/solubility/sol_detail.aspx?sysID=59_244
Buzzi-Ferraris G, Manenti F (2010) Fundamentals and linear algebra for the chemical engineer: solving numerical problems. Wiley VCH, Weinheim
Rusling JF (1988) Minimizing errors in numerical analysis of chemical data. J Chem Educ 65(10):863
Zhou X, Zhou X (2014) The unit problem in the thermodynamic calculation of adsorption using the Langmuir equation. Chem Eng Comm 201:1459–1467
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Colombia Consortium.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Carrero, J.I. Application of the van’t Hoff equation to phase equilibria. ChemTexts 10, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-024-00188-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-024-00188-x