Vapor-Liquid Equilibria Measured by a Gillespie Still - Ethyl Alcohol - Water System

Rieder, Robert M.; Thompson, A. Ralph

doi:10.1021/ie50480a060

Cited by 37 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The application was tested on a set of 270 zeotropic and azeotropic systems of homogeneous binary solutions and 30 non‐homogeneous systems. In addition to the VLE data, values of the excess properties ( v E and h E ) have been used and, also, LLE data of the system studied, extracted from the literature,…”

Section: Results Of the Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

A rigorous method to evaluate the consistency of experimental data in phase equilibria. Application to VLE and VLLE

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work forms part of a broader study that describes a methodology to validate experimental data of phase equilibria for multicomponent systems from a thermodynamic‐mathematical perspective. The goal of this article is to present and justify this method and to study its application to vapor–liquid equilibria (VLE) and vapor–liquid–liquid equilibria (VLLE), obtained under isobaric/isothermal conditions. A procedure based on the Gibbs‐Duhem equation is established which presents two independent calculation paths for its resolution: (a) an integral method and (b) a differential method. Functions are generated for both cases that establish the verification or consistency of data, δψ for the integral test and δζ for the differential approach, which are statistically evaluated by their corresponding average values [ δtrueψ¯, δtrueζ¯], and the standard deviations [ strue(δψtrue), strue(δζtrue)]. The evaluation of these parameters for application to real cases is carried out using a set of hypothetical systems (with data generated artificially), for which the values are adequately changed to determine their influence on the method. In this way, the requirements of the proposed method for the data are evaluated and their behavior in response to any disruption in the canonical variables (p,T, phase compositions). The conditions for thermodynamic consistency of data are: δtrueψ¯<2, strue(δψtrue)<0.2, δtrueζ¯<5, and s(δξ)<0.2. In systems with VLLE, in addition to the previous criteria, must occur that: δxLLE<0.05 and δTLLE<0.5 K. The new proposed method has been tested with a set of 300 experimental binary systems, biphasic and triphasic, obtained from published bibliography, and the results are compared with those of other tests commonly used for testing thermodynamic consistency. The results show that the greater rigor of the proposed method is mainly due to the simultaneous verification of various independent variables. As a result, the conditions for the new test are verified for fewer systems than using other tests mentioned in the literature (i.e., Fredenslund‐test and direct of Van Ness). Its unique application is sufficient to ensure the consistency of experimental data, without using other tests. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2017

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

A rigorous method to evaluate the consistency of experimental data in phase equilibria. Application to VLE and VLLE

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To enable a comparison between the suggested nonvolatile entrainers and the conventional entrainer ED, NRTL parameters were also determined for the VLE ED–water and ED–ethanol according to the procedure described elsewhere (Seiler et al, 2002c). Furthermore, the NRTL parameters for the ethanol–water system were determined by fitting them to four selected binary VLE data sets from the literature (343.15 and 363.15 K: Pemberton and Mash, 1978; 423.15 K: Barr‐David and Dodge, 1959; 10 5 Pa: Rieder and Thompson, 1949). This procedure allowed for an accurate description of the underlying phase behavior over the temperature and concentration range of interest.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of azeotropic mixtures using hyperbranched polymers or ionic liquids

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work the suitability of selected commercially available hyperbranched polymers and ionic liquids as entrainers for the extractive distillation and as extraction solvents for the liquid–liquid extraction is investigated. Based on thermodynamic studies on the influence of hyperbranched polymers and ionic liquids on the vapor–liquid and liquid–liquid equilibrium of the azeotropic ethanol–water and THF–water systems, process simulations are carried out, which allow evaluating the potential of hyperbranched polymers and ionic liquids as selective components for the mentioned applications in terms of feasibility and energetic efficiency. Both hyperbranched polymers and ionic liquids break a variety of azeotropic systems. Since their selectivity, capacity, viscosity, and thermal stability can be customized, they appear superior to many conventional entrainers and extraction solvents. For the ethanol–water separation, the nonvolatile substances hyperbranched polyglycerol and [EMIM]+[BF4]− show a remarkable entrainer performance and therefore enable extractive distillation processes, which require less energy than the conventional process using 1,2‐ethanediol as an entrainer. Evaluation of a new THF–water separation process indicates the competitiveness of the suggested process and a considerable potential of using hyperbranched polymers as extraction solvents. © 2004 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J 50: 2439–2454, 2004

show abstract

“…Liquid density (Murphy & Gaines, 1974): Kojima, Ochi, & Nakazawa (1969), Kurihara, Nakamichi & Kojima (1993), Paul (1976), Rieder & Thompson (1949) and Yang (2002). 3 Ethanol-methanol ELV data (Amer, Paxton & Van Winkle, 1956;Delzenne, 1958;Kurihara et al, 1993), water-methanol data (Bredig & Bayer, 1927;Dalager, 1969;Dunlop, 1948;Green & Venner, 1955;Hughes & Maloney, 1952;Khalfaoui, Meniai & Borja., 1997;Kurihara et al, 1993;Kohoutova, Suska, Novak, & Pick 1970;Maripuri & Ratcliff, 1972;Olevsky & Golubev, 1956;Ocon & Rebolleda, 1958;Ocon & Tabeada, 1959;Othmer & Benenati, 1945;Pascal & Garnier, 1921 Liquid viscosity (Reid, Prausnitz & Sherwood, 1977):…”

Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%