Craig M. Bethke
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- November 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780195094756
- eISBN:
- 9780197560778
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780195094756.003.0007
- Subject:
- Earth Sciences and Geography, Geochemistry
Aqueous geochemists work daily with equations that describe the equilibrium points of chemical reactions among dissolved species, minerals, and gases. To study an individual reaction, a geochemist ...
More
Aqueous geochemists work daily with equations that describe the equilibrium points of chemical reactions among dissolved species, minerals, and gases. To study an individual reaction, a geochemist writes the familiar expression, known as the mass action equation, relating species’ activities to the reaction’s equilibrium constant. In this chapter we carry this type of analysis a step farther by developing expressions that describe the conditions under which not just one but all of the possible reactions in a geochemical system are at equilibrium. We consider a geochemical system comprising at least an aqueous solution in which the species of many elements are dissolved. We generally have some information about the fluid’s bulk composition, perhaps directly because we have analyzed it in the laboratory. The system may include one or more minerals, up to the limit imposed by the phase rule (see Section 3.4), that coexist with and are in equilibrium with the aqueous fluid. The fluid's composition might also be buffered by equilibrium with a gas reservoir (perhaps the atmosphere) that contains one or more gases. The gas buffer is large enough that its composition remains essentially unchanged if gas exsolves from or dissolves into the fluid. How can we express the equilibrium state of such a system? A direct approach would be to write each reaction that could occur among the system’s species, minerals, and gases. To solve for the equilibrium state, we would determine a set of concentrations that simultaneously satisfy the mass action equation corresponding to each possible reaction. The concentrations would also have to add up, together with the mole numbers of any minerals in the system, to give the system’s bulk composition. In other words, the concentrations would also need to satisfy a set of mass balance equations. Such an approach, however, is unnecessarily difficult to carry out. Dissolving even a few elements in water produces many tens of species that need be considered, and complex solutions contain many hundreds of species. Each species represents an independent variable, namely its concentration, in our scheme. For any but the simplest of chemical systems, the problem would contain too many unknown values to be solved conveniently.
Less
Aqueous geochemists work daily with equations that describe the equilibrium points of chemical reactions among dissolved species, minerals, and gases. To study an individual reaction, a geochemist writes the familiar expression, known as the mass action equation, relating species’ activities to the reaction’s equilibrium constant. In this chapter we carry this type of analysis a step farther by developing expressions that describe the conditions under which not just one but all of the possible reactions in a geochemical system are at equilibrium. We consider a geochemical system comprising at least an aqueous solution in which the species of many elements are dissolved. We generally have some information about the fluid’s bulk composition, perhaps directly because we have analyzed it in the laboratory. The system may include one or more minerals, up to the limit imposed by the phase rule (see Section 3.4), that coexist with and are in equilibrium with the aqueous fluid. The fluid's composition might also be buffered by equilibrium with a gas reservoir (perhaps the atmosphere) that contains one or more gases. The gas buffer is large enough that its composition remains essentially unchanged if gas exsolves from or dissolves into the fluid. How can we express the equilibrium state of such a system? A direct approach would be to write each reaction that could occur among the system’s species, minerals, and gases. To solve for the equilibrium state, we would determine a set of concentrations that simultaneously satisfy the mass action equation corresponding to each possible reaction. The concentrations would also have to add up, together with the mole numbers of any minerals in the system, to give the system’s bulk composition. In other words, the concentrations would also need to satisfy a set of mass balance equations. Such an approach, however, is unnecessarily difficult to carry out. Dissolving even a few elements in water produces many tens of species that need be considered, and complex solutions contain many hundreds of species. Each species represents an independent variable, namely its concentration, in our scheme. For any but the simplest of chemical systems, the problem would contain too many unknown values to be solved conveniently.
Craig M. Bethke
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- November 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780195094756
- eISBN:
- 9780197560778
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780195094756.003.0018
- Subject:
- Earth Sciences and Geography, Geochemistry
To this point we have measured reaction progress parametrically in terms of the reaction progress variable ξ, which is dimensionless. When in Chapter 11 we reacted feldspar with water, for example, ...
More
To this point we have measured reaction progress parametrically in terms of the reaction progress variable ξ, which is dimensionless. When in Chapter 11 we reacted feldspar with water, for example, we tied reaction progress to the amount of feldspar that had reacted and expressed our results along that coordinate. Studying reactions in this way is in many cases perfectly acceptable. But what if we want to know how much time it took to reach a certain point along the reaction path? Or, when modeling the reaction of granite with rainwater, how can we set the relative rates at which the various minerals in the granite dissolve? In such cases, we need to incorporate reaction rate laws from the field of geochemical kinetics. The differences between the study of thermodynamics and kinetics might be illustrated (e.g., Lasaga, 198la) by the analogy of rainfall on a mountain. On the mountaintop, the rainwater contains a considerable amount of potential energy. With time, it flows downhill, losing energy (to be precise, losing hydraulic potential, the mechanical energy content of a unit mass of water; Hubbert, 1940), until it eventually reaches the ocean, its lowest possible energy level. The thermodynamic interpretation of the process is obvious: the water seeks to minimize its energy content. But how long will it take for the rainfall to reach the ocean? The rain might enter a swift mountain stream, flow into a river, and soon reach the sea. It might infiltrate the subsurface and migrate slowly through deep aquifers until it discharges in a distant valley, thousands of years later. Or, perhaps it will find a faster route through a fracture network or flow through an open drill hole. There are many pathways, just as there are many mechanisms by which a chemical reaction can proceed. Clearly, the questions addressed by geochemical kinetics are more difficult to answer than are those posed in thermodynamics. In geochemical kinetics, the rates at which reactions proceed are given (in units such as moles/sec or moles/yr) by rate laws, as discussed in the next section. Kinetic theory can be applied to study reactions among the species in solution.
Less
To this point we have measured reaction progress parametrically in terms of the reaction progress variable ξ, which is dimensionless. When in Chapter 11 we reacted feldspar with water, for example, we tied reaction progress to the amount of feldspar that had reacted and expressed our results along that coordinate. Studying reactions in this way is in many cases perfectly acceptable. But what if we want to know how much time it took to reach a certain point along the reaction path? Or, when modeling the reaction of granite with rainwater, how can we set the relative rates at which the various minerals in the granite dissolve? In such cases, we need to incorporate reaction rate laws from the field of geochemical kinetics. The differences between the study of thermodynamics and kinetics might be illustrated (e.g., Lasaga, 198la) by the analogy of rainfall on a mountain. On the mountaintop, the rainwater contains a considerable amount of potential energy. With time, it flows downhill, losing energy (to be precise, losing hydraulic potential, the mechanical energy content of a unit mass of water; Hubbert, 1940), until it eventually reaches the ocean, its lowest possible energy level. The thermodynamic interpretation of the process is obvious: the water seeks to minimize its energy content. But how long will it take for the rainfall to reach the ocean? The rain might enter a swift mountain stream, flow into a river, and soon reach the sea. It might infiltrate the subsurface and migrate slowly through deep aquifers until it discharges in a distant valley, thousands of years later. Or, perhaps it will find a faster route through a fracture network or flow through an open drill hole. There are many pathways, just as there are many mechanisms by which a chemical reaction can proceed. Clearly, the questions addressed by geochemical kinetics are more difficult to answer than are those posed in thermodynamics. In geochemical kinetics, the rates at which reactions proceed are given (in units such as moles/sec or moles/yr) by rate laws, as discussed in the next section. Kinetic theory can be applied to study reactions among the species in solution.