1996
DOI: 10.1021/je960118o
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Binary Isobaric Vapor−Liquid Equilibria of Ethanolamines + Water

Abstract: Binary vapor−liquid equilibria for monoethanolamine + water at pressures of 101.33 kPa and 66.66 kPa and diethanolamine + water and monoethanolamine + diethanolamine at 6.66 kPa were measured. The modified UNIFAC model was used to calculate the results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
19
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
2
19
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The comparison of the calculated vapour pressures of EDA, 1,2-DAP, 1,3-DAP, 1,4-DAB, or water from equation (1) For pure water, our vapour pressure data agree to within 0.02% with those reported in the literature [1,[10][11][12][13][14] within the temperature range (298 to 363) K.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…The comparison of the calculated vapour pressures of EDA, 1,2-DAP, 1,3-DAP, 1,4-DAB, or water from equation (1) For pure water, our vapour pressure data agree to within 0.02% with those reported in the literature [1,[10][11][12][13][14] within the temperature range (298 to 363) K.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Kim et al (2008) used an ebulliometer setup to determine the total pressure with the liquid and vapor mole fractions of MEA, methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), and methylaminopropanolamine (MAPA) analyzed using gas chromatography. Cai et al (1996) measured isobaric VLE at 101.3 kPa and 66 kPa (373K -443K) of MEA in water using the standard curve of refraction index versus the mole fraction of the binary mixture at 20 ºC. The liquid phase activity coefficients were calculated with the UNIFAC group contribution model as published by Larsen et al (1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, Nath and Bender [65]; , Daubert et al [66]; , Cai et al [67]; , Tochigi et al [68]; , Kapteina et al [69]; , Kim et al [70]; , Belabbaci et al [71]; , Klepáčová et al [72]; , Klepáčová et al [72] (excluded data point); , this work; , absolute deviations. Some data listed in Table 4 are not displayed because they are out of scale.…”
Section: Page 32 Of 43mentioning
confidence: 99%