Here is the data table of relative Vi∘ values for water, as plotted in the Solutions topic. These are converted from Atkins' Physical Chemistry (8th edition, Table 2.7 in the back pages). Note these are all:
for ideally dilute ions in water,
at 298 K and 1 bar,
using a reference ionic concentration of c∘=1mol/L (actually for molality b∘=1mol/kg, but for pure water these are equivalent)
continuing our usual convention that neutral chemical potentials are equal to the Gibbs formation energies (see below for how this works technically).
The third column follows from the second by Vi∘−VH+∘=ΔfGi∘/(ziF) (with the reference value ΔfGH+∘ set to zero; see the derivation below).
Ion i
ΔfGi∘ (kJ/mol)
Vi∘−VH+∘ (V)
HSO4−
-755.91
+7.8345
Cr2O72−
-1301.1
+6.742
HCO3−
-586.77
+6.0814
SO42−
-744.53
+3.8583
CrO42−
-727.75
+3.7713
PO43−
-1018.7
+3.519
F−
-278.79
+2.8895
CO32−
-527.81
+2.7352
OH−
-157.24
+1.6297
Cl−
-131.23
+1.3601
NO3−
-108.74
+1.1270
Br−
-103.96
+1.0775
Hg2+
+164.40
+0.8519
Ag+
+77.11
+0.7992
Hg22+
+153.52
+0.7956
I−
-51.57
+0.5345
Cu+
+49.98
+0.5180
Cu2+
+65.49
+0.3394
H+
0.
0.
Fe3+
-4.7
-0.016
HS−
+12.08
-0.1252
Pb2+
-24.43
-0.1266
Sn2+
-27.2
-0.141
Cd2+
-77.612
-0.40220
Fe2+
-78.90
-0.4089
S2−
+85.8
-0.445
Zn2+
-147.06
-0.7621
NH4+
-79.31
-0.8220
Al3+
-485.
-1.68
CN−
+172.4
-1.787
Mg2+
-454.8
-2.357
Na+
-261.91
-2.7145
Ca2+
-553.58
-2.8687
Ba2+
-560.77
-2.9060
K+
-283.27
-2.9359
Cs+
-292.02
-3.0266
Li+
-293.31
-3.0399
Some readers will notice that many of these entries coincide with standard electrode potentials, and that is for good reason! For elemental metals (with μM=0 under our convention) in equilibrium with an ideal-dilute c∘ concentration of their ion Mn+, we do expect E=VMn+∘−VH+∘.
Here is the plot again; note that a few of these values were omitted from the plot due to overlapping too tightly or being too extreme.
A subtle technicality with a happy ending
Chemical tables like Atkins' commonly list standard Gibbs energy of formation, ΔfGi∘, for ionic solutes in water. But what do these values actually mean? We want to continue our usual convention that chemical potentials equal the molar Gibbs energy of formation but we have to be careful here.
This chemical data is only for bulk homogeneous solutions, which requires charge neutrality. So suppose we add ionic species i and j in charge-neutral amounts, that means we add 1 mole of i and −zi/zj moles of j, and the standard state of this neutral combination is:
ΔfGi with j∘=ΔfGi∘−zjziΔfGj∘.
This seems so complex but it reflects the reality that we can't measure the standard state of H+ alone. Rather we experimentally measure, say, the standard state of aqueous HCl that dissociates into H+ and Cl−, and all we really learn is that ΔfGH+ with Cl−∘=−131.23kJ/mol.
Note that all of these equations leave one degree of freedom unsatisfied. Accordingly, the table makers freely choose ΔfGH+∘=0. In fact we even assert this to be 0 at all temperatures, so the formation entropy of H+ is zero, and the formation entropy for some other ions is negative!
Now, we assert our convention that charge-neutral chemical potentials are equal to Gibbs formation energies, but we only apply it to that charge-neutral measurable difference:
μi with j∘=ΔfGi with j∘,
so,
μint,i∘−zjziμint,j∘=ΔfGi∘−zjziΔfGj∘.
And finally, we can bring in Vi∘, using μint,i∘=ziF(Vi∘−ϕ) and μint,j∘=zjF(Vj∘−ϕ), divide both sides by ziF, and we have a beautiful result:
Vi∘−Vj∘=ziFΔfGi∘−zjFΔfGj∘.
So, we can trivially re-tabulate all the ΔfGi∘ values into a Vi∘-differences table.
And, to clarify, this means we have the following relationship:
μint,i∘=ΔfGi∘+ziFξ,
for some value of ξ that we simply do not know, nor do we need to know it in order to get our Vi∘'s. The value of ξ depends on solvent, temperature, and pressure, and especially it depends on how we defined ϕ, and this broad freedom is what lets chemists keep ΔfGH+∘=0 for all situations.