Benjamin Janotta, Maximilian Schalenbach, Hermann Tempel and Rüdiger-A. Eichel
{"title":"Fitting ambiguities mask deficiencies of the Debye–Hückel theory: revealing inconsistencies of the Poisson–Boltzmann framework and permittivity†","authors":"Benjamin Janotta, Maximilian Schalenbach, Hermann Tempel and Rüdiger-A. Eichel","doi":"10.1039/D5CP00646E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The more than 100-year-old Debye–Hückel theory displays the most widely used approach for modeling ionic activities in electrolytes. The Debye–Hückel theory finds widespread application, such as in equations of state and Onsager's theory for conductivities. Here, a theoretical inconsistency of the Debye–Hückel theory is discussed, which originates from the employed Poisson–Boltzmann framework that violates the statistical independence of states presumed for the Boltzmann statistics. Furthermore, the static permittivity of electrolytic solutions is discussed as not directly measurable, while common methods for its extraction from experimental data are assessed as erroneous. A sensitivity analysis of modeled activity coefficients with respect to the permittivity and ionic radii as input parameters is conducted, showing that their influences overshadow physicochemical differences of common variations of Debye–Hückel models. Eventually, this study points out that the justification of the traditional and still often used Debye–Hückel models by experimental validation is affected by fitting ambiguities that eventually impede its predictive capabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":99,"journal":{"name":"Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics","volume":" 15","pages":" 7703-7715"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/cp/d5cp00646e?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/cp/d5cp00646e","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The more than 100-year-old Debye–Hückel theory displays the most widely used approach for modeling ionic activities in electrolytes. The Debye–Hückel theory finds widespread application, such as in equations of state and Onsager's theory for conductivities. Here, a theoretical inconsistency of the Debye–Hückel theory is discussed, which originates from the employed Poisson–Boltzmann framework that violates the statistical independence of states presumed for the Boltzmann statistics. Furthermore, the static permittivity of electrolytic solutions is discussed as not directly measurable, while common methods for its extraction from experimental data are assessed as erroneous. A sensitivity analysis of modeled activity coefficients with respect to the permittivity and ionic radii as input parameters is conducted, showing that their influences overshadow physicochemical differences of common variations of Debye–Hückel models. Eventually, this study points out that the justification of the traditional and still often used Debye–Hückel models by experimental validation is affected by fitting ambiguities that eventually impede its predictive capabilities.
拟合的模糊性掩盖了debye - h ckel理论的缺陷:揭示了泊松-玻尔兹曼框架和介电常数的不一致性
100多年前的debye - h ckel理论显示了最广泛使用的模拟电解质离子活性的方法。debye - hckel理论得到了广泛的应用,例如在状态方程和Onsager的电导率理论中。本文讨论了debye - h ckel理论的理论不一致性,这种不一致性源于所采用的泊松-玻尔兹曼框架违反了玻尔兹曼统计假定的状态的统计独立性。此外,讨论了电解溶液的静态介电常数是不可直接测量的,而从实验数据中提取它的常用方法被认为是错误的。模拟活度系数对介电常数和离子半径作为输入参数的敏感性分析表明,它们的影响掩盖了debye - h ckel模型常见变化的物理化学差异。最后,本研究指出,传统的和仍然经常使用的debye - h ckel模型通过实验验证的正当性受到拟合歧义的影响,最终阻碍了其预测能力。
期刊介绍:
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (PCCP) is an international journal co-owned by 19 physical chemistry and physics societies from around the world. This journal publishes original, cutting-edge research in physical chemistry, chemical physics and biophysical chemistry. To be suitable for publication in PCCP, articles must include significant innovation and/or insight into physical chemistry; this is the most important criterion that reviewers and Editors will judge against when evaluating submissions.
The journal has a broad scope and welcomes contributions spanning experiment, theory, computation and data science. Topical coverage includes spectroscopy, dynamics, kinetics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, electrochemistry, catalysis, surface science, quantum mechanics, quantum computing and machine learning. Interdisciplinary research areas such as polymers and soft matter, materials, nanoscience, energy, surfaces/interfaces, and biophysical chemistry are welcomed if they demonstrate significant innovation and/or insight into physical chemistry. Joined experimental/theoretical studies are particularly appreciated when complementary and based on up-to-date approaches.