Homogeneous Reactions

  • Gianni Astarita

Abstract

We consider a one-phase system (so that the assumptions of invertibility discussed in the preceding chapter are justified) in which a single chemical reaction is taking place, say, e.g.,
$$\mathrm{CO+\frac{1}{2}O_{2}}\;=\;\mathrm{CO_{2}}$$
(3.1.1)
Equation (3.1.1) does not, of course, imply addition in the ordinary algebraic sense of the quantities CO and O2. The meaning of equation (3.1.1) is to recall the experimentally observed fact that, when a given number of moles of CO is consumed by the reaction, the same number of moles of CO2 is produced, and half as many moles of O2 are consumed. Let the components appearing in the reaction be numbered consecutively, say CO is B 1, O2 is B 2, and CO2 is B 3, and let σ j be the corresponding stoichiometric coefficients, say σ1 = −1, σ2 = −1/2, and σ3 = 1. We note that the stoichiometric coefficients of the species appearing on the left-hand side (the “reactants”) are assigned negative stoichiometric coefficients. Equation (3.1.1) can now be written as follows:
$$\underset{j}\sum\sigma_{j}B_{j}\;=\;0$$
(3.1.2)

Keywords

Free Enthalpy Extensive Property Homogeneous Reaction Stoichiometric Coefficient Functional Derivative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. The method of determining the rank of the stoichiometric matrix presents some subtlety when different isomers may be present in the reacting mixture; see J. C. Whitwell and R. S. Dartt, AIChE J. 19, 1114 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Proof that the reaction subspace and the composition space coincide only in the case of isomerization and polymerization reactions is given by G. Astarita, Chem. Eng. Sci. 31, 1224 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Direct coupling between different chemical reactions is generally excluded as a possibility in the chemical literature; the point is discussed by M. J. Boudart, J. Phys. Chem. 87, 2286 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. The implications of the strong constraint, that every individual chemical reaction proceeds with a nonnegative dissipation rate on possible reaction pathways, are discussed by R. Shinnar and C. A. Feng, Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam. 24, 153 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. There is ample literature on the mathematics of stoichiometry and mass action kinetics; two important references are E. H. Kerner, Bull. Math. Biophys. 34, 243 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Feinberg, Arch. Ratl. Mech. Anal. 49, 187 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. The general case of linear kinetics is formalized by J. Wei and C. D. Prater, Adv. Catal. 13, 203 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Point (e) of Problem 3.1 raises the possibility that there may be more than one equilibrium point in the reaction subspace. This is possible in nonideal mixtures; see H. G. Othmer, Chem. Eng. Sci. 31, 993 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. The whole question of independence of chemical reactions, the influence of stoichiometry on the equilibrium behavior of reacting systems, and the stability of chemical equilibrium was discussed in detail long ago by E. Jouguet, J. Ecole Poly., II Ser. 21, 61, 181 (1921); a more recent formal discussion was given by.Google Scholar
  10. R. Aris, Arch. Ratl. Mech. Anal. 19, 81 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. The general theory of homogeneous reacting mixtures, expressed in terms of internal state variables, has an ample literature. Some important references are M. E. Gurtin and A. S. Vargas, Arch. Rath Mech. Anal. 43, 179 (1971)Google Scholar
  12. B. D. Coleman and M. E. Gurtin, J. Chem. Phys. 47, 597 (1967); Phys. Fluids 10, 1454 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. C. A. Truesdell, Rational Thermodynamics, 2nd ed., Chapter 5, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. The best source for the concept of affinity is Th. De Donder and P. Van Rysselberghe, Thermodynamic Theory and Affinity, Stanford University Press (1936); the concept of affinity, however, predates this by quite some time. The word “affinity” was used as far back as 1888 by H. Le Chatelier, Les Equilibres Chimiques, Carré et Naud, Paris (1888), and it was attributed to earlier workers such as Berthelot, if in derogatory terms.Google Scholar
  15. The question of writing the stoichiometric equation for a reaction in the form of equation (3.1.2), with stoichiometric coefficients which can be both positive and negative, also has an old tradition; see, e.g., K. G. Denbigh, The Thermodynamics of the Steady State, Methuen, London (1951).Google Scholar
  16. This leads to the question of what is meant by the so-called “principle of microscopic reversibility.” This is discussed in the Denbigh book cited above, as well as by J. Wei, J. Chem. Phys. 36, 1578 (1962) and by.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Astarita, Quad. Ing. Chim. Ital. 14, 1 (1978).Google Scholar
  18. The continuous description of mixtures was first developed by Th. De Donder, L’affinité—Seconde Partie, Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1931). The presentation in Section 3.6, as well as most modern analyses of continuous mixtures, is based on the methodology discussed in the fundamental work of.Google Scholar
  19. R. Aris and G. R. Gavalas, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 260, 351 (1966); however, the second-law implications are based on the methodology presented by Truesdell for the case of a finite number of reactions in the book cited above. The question of substituting pseudocomponents for a mixture, by finding the optimal quadrature points for the integrals appearing in a continuous description, is discussed byCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. S. K. Shibata, S. I. Sandier, and R. A. Behrens, Chem. Eng. Sci. 42, 197 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinetic analyses for continuous mixtures (mostly linear kinetics) have been reviewed by V. W. Weekman, Chem. Eng. Prog., Symp. Ser. No. 11, 75, 3 (1979) and byGoogle Scholar
  22. K. B. Bischoff and P. Coxson, Proc. 2nd ICREC Meeting, Pune (1987). Some preliminary analysis of the nonlinear case is discussed by G. Astarita and R. Ocone, AIChE J. 39, 1299 (1988) and by G. Astarita, AIChEJ. (to be published).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. A good source for studying functional analysis is F. Riesz and B. Nagy, Functional Analysis, Ungar, New York (1955).Google Scholar
  24. Liapounov functions are discussed in all textbooks on stability analysis; a good source is M. M. Denn. Stability of Reactions and Transport Processes, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1975).Google Scholar
  25. Problem 3.3 is a variation of the classical predator-prey model of A. J. Lotka, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 42, 1595 (1920); Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 6, 410 (1920). In the Lotka formulation the kinetic equations areCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianni Astarita
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.University of NaplesNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations