The electrochemical potential of an ion i in an electrolytic solvent is given by:

\begin{align}\mu_i(\vec r) &= \mu_i^0 + RT \ln(a_i(\vec r))\\& = \mu_i^0 + RT \ln(\gamma_i(\vec r) c_i(\vec r)/c_0) \\&= \mu_i^0 + RT \ln(c_i(\vec r)/c_0) + RT \ln(\gamma_i(\vec r)) \\&= \mu_i^0 + RT \ln(c_i(\vec r)/c_0)+z_i e \phi(\vec r) \end{align}

where $\mu_i^0$ is the chemical potential of the ion in an ideal solution with ionic concentration $c_0$, $\gamma$ is the activity coefficient, $\phi$ the electrostatic potential of the ions in solution (given by the Poisson equation).

Is this expression correct? The authors in this paper (I. Rubinstein, Electro-Diffusion of Ions (1990) (SIAM link)) claim the following:

... the entire system, including the boundary layers. This implies in turn the establishment of a certain degree of smoothness on the microscopic scale $r_d$ ($\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ dimensionless terms) of some function of concentration and the electric potential, termed the electrochemical potential and defined as

$$\tilde{\mu}_i = RT \ln{\tilde{C}_i} + z_iF\tilde{\varphi} \tag{1.19a}$$

or in dimensionless terms

$$\mu_i = \ln{C_i} + z_i\varphi . \label{eq:1.19b} \tag{1.19b}$$

Indeed, by $\eqref{eq:1.19b}$

$$j_i = -\alpha_iC_i\nabla\mu_i, \label{eq:1.19c} \tag{1.19c}$$

so that $j_i = O(1)$ implies that the variation $(\delta \mu)|_{\varepsilon^{1/2}}$ on the length $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ is of the order

$$(\delta \mu)|_{\varepsilon^{1/2}} = O\left(\varepsilon^{1/2}\right).$$


To illustrate some of the notions introduced so far, let us consider the $C_i$ and $\varphi$ fields in an electrodialysis cell at equilibrium. For simplicity, let us limit our consideration to a $1,1$ valent electrolyte at bulk (feed) concentration $C_0$. Assume a constant fixed charge density $\tilde{N}(-\tilde{N})$ for the an- (cat-) ion membrane.

Recall that equilibrium is a steady state without macroscopic fluxes. By $\eqref{eq:1.19c}$ this implies constancy of ionic electrochemical potentials in the system. Thus,

$$\mu_i = \ln{C_i} + z_i\varphi = 0 \tag{1.23a}$$


$$C_i = e^{-z_i\varphi} \label{eq:1.23b} \tag{1.23b}$$

(For the univalent electrolyte under consideration $M = 2$, $z_1 = 1$, $z_2 = -1$ and the dimensionless bulk concentration at $\varphi = 0$ is normalized to unity.)

Equation $\eqref{eq:1.23b}$ is the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution in a potential field. Substitution of $\eqref{eq:1.23b}$ into (1.9c) yields the Poisson-Boltzmann ...

When you assume equilibrium, the ionic flux $j_i \propto \nabla \mu_i$ should be zero. But what people do in this paper, is setting $$ RT \ln(c_i(\vec r)/c_0)+z_i e \phi(\vec r)=0 $$ and therefore we get:

$$c_i(\vec r) = c_0 \exp(-z_i e/(RT) \phi(\vec r)),$$

which is the Boltzmann distribution of the ions according o the electrostatic potential. Does anyone understand this logic? Why can we set the additional term to zero in equilibrium? And why do we neglect $\mu_i^0$?


1 Answer 1


You state

Then you can assume equilibrium, thus the ionic flux $j_i\propto\nabla\mu$ should be zero

So it seems to me that the authors you read are not defining $$ RT \ln(c_i(\mathbf r)/c_0)+z_i e \phi(\mathbf r)\equiv0 $$ but instead defining $$ \mu_i(\mathbf r)=\mu_i^0. $$ That is, the chemical potential doesn't change.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reply! I have edited my question and posted the important part of the original paper. Please take another look at it. $\endgroup$
    – Guiste
    Feb 5, 2015 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Guiste: As far as I can tell, my answer has an explanation for your update already. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Feb 5, 2015 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ I accepted this answer, because I think this is what the authors are claiming. However, I believe that really $\mu_i-\mu_i^0$ has to be a constant and not zero. This is the constant shift of the electrostatic potential which is unknown. $\endgroup$
    – Guiste
    Jan 11, 2018 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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