2

Is combustion a phase transition?

Premise
If we take a chemical reaction $$ A + B \leftrightarrow AB, $$ we expect all the three chemicals, $A,B, AB$ to be present in the mixture, in the proportions determined by their chemical potentials, which is related to the binding energy of the compoind $AB$.

However, this is not the case for many combustable mixtures. E.g., $H_2$ and $O_2$ may remain a gaseous mixture for a very long time, unless we heat it or pass an electric discharge, in which case they convert with explosion to water, following $$ 2H_2 + O_2 \rightarrow 2H_2O. $$ We also rarely observe this reaction spontaneously going into the backward direction.

The reason for that is that hydrogen and oxygen molecules have low binding energy and rarely dissociate at room temperature. In other words, there is a high energy barrier separating the $H_2+O_2$ phase from $H_2O$ phase (which has lower energy). This seems to me as an example of a first order phase transition (I think one could readily write down the Landau Free energy).

Question
I have never seen combustion discussed in this way - which might be due to my little knwoledge of the subject. I am thus wondering:

  • Is this a correct/viable point of view on the combustion?
  • What can be gained from such an approach or whether there are good reasons why it is not used in practice.

References to the relevant articles/books would be greatly appreciated.

Roger V.
  • 58,522
  • 1
    Combustion is not a phase transition! Think more like a chain reaction involving free radicals. Burning hydrogen gas in oxygen gas results in water vapor. – Ed V Nov 10 '21 at 15:02
  • 1
    I agree with Ed V. You can't take hot combustion products (e.g., water vapor), cool them down, and end up with the starting reactants. – David White Nov 10 '21 at 15:07
  • @EdV I don't think that the two viewpoints are mutially exclusive: one can discuss the kinetics of phase transitions, like evaporation/condensation, melting/crystallization or remagnetization via formation of domains - all of them can be viewed as chain reactions. – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 15:08
  • @DavidWhite that's because it is first order - one minima in Landau free energy is lower. – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 15:09
  • Re, "2 and 2 may remain a gaseous mixture for a very long time, unless we heat it or..." Read about activation energy. – Solomon Slow Nov 10 '21 at 15:23
  • 1
    Re, "...they convert with explosion to water," "Explosion" is a physical description—something disintigrates and the pieces of it fly off in different directions. The name of the chemical process that could cause a container filled with hydrogen and oxygen to explode is detonation. – Solomon Slow Nov 10 '21 at 15:26
  • @SolomonSlow Activation energy is discussed at length in my question (although I didn't use exactly this term anywhere - it was understood that it is clear). – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 15:47
  • I am a chemist, I have detonated hydrogen and oxygen mixtures (without injury) and, quite frankly, there is no way it is a phase change. As well, evaporation is not a chain reaction. Activation energies for chemical reactions are of great importance in chemistry, along with the associated kinetics and thermodynamics, but chemical reactions are not all phase changes, no matter how broadly that may be defined. – Ed V Nov 10 '21 at 16:03
  • @EdV You might be right: if you can clearly explain why it is not a phase transition, please write an answer. – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 16:12
  • Thanks for the opportunity, but why not ask it over at chemistry SE? We have some folks there who can answer much better than I can. – Ed V Nov 10 '21 at 16:21
  • 1
    @EdV Good idea. Phase transition and thermodynamics seem very much physics to me... besides this is my native language. But surely chemists might know about it quite a bit. – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 16:36
  • 1
    @RogerVadim, I'm just saying, it's a term of art. It saves time and mental energy every time someone uses it in conversation. There's a lot of newbies here, and then there's some people here who know real physics but, who don't have the patience to deal with "dumb" questions. I try to help noobs ask questions that won't get dumped on. If someone spends time and energy describing what could have been said with a word or two, that can be a clue. Sometimes, I misjudge, or I fail to thoroughly read what they wrote. I hope I did not offend. – Solomon Slow Nov 10 '21 at 17:00
  • @SolomonSlow Please take no offense as well. – Roger V. Nov 10 '21 at 17:24
  • I am a chemist and this made me realise that I don't know exactly what is the difference between a transition and a reaction if I neglect the high school level definition that we all know. The poon is that thermodynamics as I know put time under the carpet. The energy barrier you wrote about is what determine kinetics. But then even transitions as traditionally intended have they own kinetics. Also the reversibility issue might be or not a issue. Certainly you can go back and forward with a combustion reaction, controlled or not. So I don't see benefit from treatment other than the classical – Alchimista Nov 11 '21 at 13:28
  • 1
    ... classical way. It seems an interesting discussion unless I forgot/don't see at the moment a trivial point that would answer your question. However, I would like to mention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topochemical_polymerization that seems an example in which reaction and a classical intended phase transition are one and the same. Again one cannot return to the monomer, though, if this has importance. Also worth trying at Chemistry SE. – Alchimista Nov 11 '21 at 13:33
  • @Alchimista thank you for giving it a thought - your comment touches all the points that came to my mind. Chemistry indeed focuses on the kinetics (how the transition happens), which is not the focus of equilibrium thermodynamics. Non-equilibrium phase transitions - like which path the reaction chooses - are perhaps of interest to chemists, but not the point here – Roger V. Nov 11 '21 at 13:54
  • I actually meant that the kinetics and the thermodynamics are treated separated, not that thermodynamics is less important. I was trying to find a criterion. For instance the common example of transition I know are reversible. But I am not sure if it suffice. And finally, the topochemical polymerisation (I worked with) is certainly a reaction as well as a phase transition, it might lack a distinct discontinuity point but I am not sure. Thermally it started just below the monomer mp, but hard to tell if the behavior was due to kinetics or a transition point. – Alchimista Nov 11 '21 at 14:33

2 Answers2

2

Seems (marginally?) relevant: "Chemical Reactions and Phase Transitions", International Journal of Thermophysics, Vol. 9, No. 5, p. 761, 1988

The author (S.C. Greer) asks the following question: "Are there chemical reactions which can be viewed as phase transitions, and is such a point of view a productive one?"

The abstract: "We consider the questions of what effects the fluctuations in fluids near critical points have on the rates and extents of chemical reactions taking place in those fluids and of whether equilibrium polymerizations can be profitably viewed as phase transitions. We find that reaction rates are expected to be affected by critical points only in rare circumstances and that, indeed, there is no compelling experimental evidence for such effects. On the other hand, there is evidence for an effect of critical fluctuations on the extents of chemical reactions at equilibrium, but the effect is not (and is, in general, not expected to be) dramatic. We find that the experimental data on equilibrium polymerizations are in qualitative agreement with predictions based on the n = 0 magnet model but that closer consideration and further experimental work are in order. "

In the conclusion: "equilibrium polymerization behaves qualitatively like a chemical reaction, but the quantitative behavior requires more consideration."

akhmeteli
  • 26,888
  • 2
  • 27
  • 65
1

Not sure if this is getting at what you are asking, but non-equilibrium phase transitions in chemical reactions have certainly been studied extensively in a variety of contexts using path integral methods and the renormalization group. Whether this can be extended to combustion or reactions requiring some activation energy,I am not sure, but this seems like a place to start:

One 'standard' approach to get something like a Landau theory is to write down a chemical master equation for the reaction and then use the "Doi-Peliti method" to formulate the master equation as a coherent-state path integral. This gives an action that has a similar look to the non-equilibrium path integrals obtained using the Martin-Siggia-Rose method (with some technical differences). Usually one considers reaction-diffusion equations, so that the chemical species may also diffuse through space.

I'm afraid I don't have time to write up a basic summary of the method and examples, so I will have to just cite a few papers that use the method. This review discusses the method toward the end of the paper, giving some of the steps for how one would convert from a master equation to the path integral. I also like the short section on deriving Doi-Peliti actions in discrete time in this technical paper on the non-perturbative renormalization group (NPRG), which is applied to single-species reaction-diffusion models in, e.g., this paper, among many others. The example chemical reaction in the question would probably require a three species model; these methods can be extending to multiple species, though I am not familiar with a paper that tackles such a case; there may be one that takes a perturbative approach, but I am mostly familiar with the NPRG literature. This paper studies a 2-species reaction in an epidemic modeling context. One can often show there exist non-trivial critical points in the renormalization group flow. In many cases the universality class ends up being that of directed percolation, in particular when there is an absorbing state.

My naive guess for a reaction of the form $2A + B \rightarrow C$, with negligible reversible transition in the opposite direction, is that it might fall into the directed percolation universality class, as "all C" is an absorbing state. On the other hand, because there is no reverse reaction, I might suspect the dynamics might be more like a multi-species coagulation (see this paper for a single species coagulation model analyzed with the non-perturbative renormalization group), which does not have a critical point in the typical sense, but can show anomalous scaling. I am not sure how one would incorporate the activation energy into this formulation of the model, though. Maybe it isn't strictly necessary: if the reaction rate is small but non-zero, the coexistence of $A$ and $B$ could just be a metastable state of the system, and on a long enough timescale a fluctuation that nucleates the reaction may eventually occur. See, for example, this paper about metastability in contact processes using the Doi-Peliti formalism. Perhaps such a nucleation could be forced in the model by an initial condition term that provides the necessary impulse, and then one could study the kinetics of the reaction.

One last note: though it doesn't involve the chemical reaction angle, flame propagation fronts in slow paper combustion have been modeled using the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation.

bbrink
  • 586
  • Thanks, this rings the bell, as I have seen Schlögl reactiin discussed in the context of non-equilibrium phase transitions. Special thank you for many references! – Roger V. Nov 11 '21 at 10:09