Translate this page into:
Excess thermodynamic parameters for binary and ternary mixtures of {1-butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} at different temperatures: A theoretical study
⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 8513339843. mrsameti@gmail.com (M. Rezaei-Sameti)
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
This article was originally published by Elsevier and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Peer review under responsibility of the King Saud University.
Abstract
In this work, we used the experimental data of Kijevcanin et al. for determining the excess thermodynamic parameters such as excess thermal expansion coefficients αE, isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy and excess partial molar volumes for the binary and ternary mixtures formed by {1-butanol + cyclohexylamine + n-heptanes} at (288.15–323.15) K. The αE values, for 1-butanol + cyclohexylamine are S-shaped and for 1-butanol + n-heptane are positive and for cyclohexylamine + n-heptane are negative over the mole fraction range. The values, for 1-butanol + cyclohexylamine are S-shaped and for binary mixture of 1-butanol + n-heptane are negative and for binary mixture of cyclohexylamine + n-heptane are positive over the mole fraction. The values of αE and are calculated by using the Flory theory, the results show a good agreement with experimental data. The values of αE and for ternary mixture {1-butanol + cyclohexylamine + n-heptanes} are determined and the experimental data are correlated as a function of the mole fraction by using the equations of Cibulka, Jasinski and Malanowski, Singe et al., Pintos et al., Calvo et al., Kohler, and Jacob–Fitzner. The results show that the Calvo et al. equation is better than others.
Keywords
Excess thermal expansion coefficients
Isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy
Flory theory
Temperature
1 Introduction
This paper is a continuation of our earlier work related to the study of thermodynamic properties of binary and ternary mixtures of different groups of organic compounds (Rezaei-Sameti et al., 2009; Rezaei-Sameti and Iloukhani, 2009; Iloukhani et al., 2005, 2006; Iloukhani and Rezaei-Sameti, 2005a,b). Excess thermodynamic properties of mixtures are useful in the study of molecular interactions and arrangements. In the recent years, measurements of thermodynamic and transport properties have been adequately employed in understanding the nature of molecular systems and physicochemical behavior in liquid mixtures. The non-rectilinear behavior of the above mentioned properties of liquid mixtures with changing mole fractions is attributed to the difference in size of the molecules and strength of interactions (Henni et al., 2005; Domiınguez et al., 2000; Lj Kijevcanin et al., 2009).
In this work we used the experimental data of Kijevcanin et al. for binary and ternary mixtures formed by 1-butanol + cyclohexylamine + n-heptane at (288.15–323.15) K for calculating thermal expansion coefficients, α, excess thermal expansion coefficients, αE, and isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy, . The values of αE and for binary mixtures are calculated by using the Flory theory. All excess parameters for binary mixtures have been fitted by Redlich–Kister (Redlich and Kister, 1948).
and the ternary mixture has been fitted by the Cibulka (Domiınguez et al., 2000), Jasinski and Malanowski (Domiınguez et al., 2000), Singe et al. (Domiınguez et al., 2000), Pintos et al. (Domiınguez et al., 2000), Calvo et al. (Domiınguez et al., 2000), Kohler (Domiınguez et al., 2000), and Jacob–Fitzner (Domiınguez et al., 2000), equations to determine the deviation between experimental and theoretical values.
2 Results and discussion
The experimental data are given at various temperatures (288.15–323.15 K) and the results are fitted by the Redlish–Kister (Redlich and Kister, 1948) equation of temperature-dependence:
These parameters were obtained by the unweighted least-squares method. The parameters Apq for all the binary mixtures are listed in Table 2.
q
0
1
2
3
4
p
0
9.5 × 10−1
−3.5 × 10−2
5.0 × 10−4
3.2
−1.0 × 10−3
5.0 × 10−3
1
7.1 × 10−6
−4.0
4.5 × 10−2
−1.0 × 10−4
2.5
2
−2.1 × 10−2
4.0 × 10−5
31.2
−2.1 × 10−1
4.0 × 10−4
{1-Butanol (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
16.4
−1.2 × 10−1
2.0 × 10−4
2.1
−1.9 × 10−2
4.0 × 10−3
1
5.0 × 10−5
10.3
−6.1 × 10−2
1.0 × 10−4
16.5
2
−0.1260
2.0 × 10−4
16.9
−1.3 × 10−1
3.0 × 10−4
{Cyclohexylamine (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
−1.2
2.6 × 10−2
−1.0 × 10−4
−2.6
1.9 × 10−2
2.0 × 10−3
1
−3.0 × 10−5
5.9
−3.2 × 10−2
4.0 × 10−5
5.8
2
−4.0 × 10−2
1.0 × 10−4
7.1
−4.0 × 10−2
1.0 × 10−4
p
σ(αE)
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine(2)}
0
−4.0 × 10−5
1.6 × 10−6
8.6 × 10−10
−2.0 × 10−4
6.9 × 10−7
8.7 × 10−8
1
−8.3 × 10−10
6.0 × 10−4
−3.3 × 10−6
2.7 × 10−9
−1.0 × 10−4
2
8.4 × 10−7
−9.3 × 10−10
−4.0 × 10−4
1.0 × 10−5
−1.0 × 10−8
{1-Butanol (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
−1.6 × 10−3
−7.8 × 10−6
−7.2 × 10−9
−4.5 × 10−6
−5.3 × 10−7
1.7 × 10−7
1
−1.1 × 10−9
−7.0 × 10−4
2.9 × 10−6
−2.1 × 10−9
−1.2 × 10−3
2
−6.5 × 10−6
−6.4 × 10−9
−1.5 × 10−3
8.1 × 10−6
−8.0 × 10−9
{Cyclohexylamine (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
2.6 × 10−3
−1.6 × 10−5
2.3 × 10−8
−6.8 × 10−4
4.5 × 10−6
5.3 × 10−6
1
−7.4 × 10−7
−3.2 × 10−3
1.8 × 10−5
−2.7 × 10−8
−3.2 × 10−3
2
1.9 × 10−5
−2.7 × 10−8
2.6 × 10−3
−1.6 × 10−5
−2.6 × 10−8
p
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2)}
0
8.9 × 10−1
4.0 × 10−4
−5.1 × 10−5
2.4
5.5 × 10−3
5.0 × 10−3
1
−1.6 × 10−5
−5.9
1.1 × 10−2
7.8 × 10−5
2.5
2
−2.2 × 10−4
−3.9 × 10−4
35.4
−2.6 × 10−2
−3.3 × 10−3
{1-Butanol (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
16.2
1.4 × 10−3
−2.3 × 10−4
2.2
−6.6 × 10−4
4.0 × 10−3
1
−4.9 × 10−5
10.6
−1.9 × 10−3
−8.7 × 10−5
17.3
2
−5.1 × 10−3
−2.2 × 10−3
17.9
−6.8 × 10−3
−2.6 × 10−4
{Cyclohexylamine (1) + n-heptane (2)}
0
−9.3 × 10−1
−1.8 × 10−3
6.4 × 10−4
−1.5
−7.7 × 10−3
1.8 × 10−3
1
4.2 × 10−5
1.7
2.7 × 10−2
−9.0 × 10−5
3.1
2
1.8 × 10−2
−9.6 × 10−5
13.8
−4.4 × 10−2
−3.5 × 10−6
In the ternary mixture the excess molar volumes, VE excess thermal expansion coefficients, αE, and isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy, were fitted with the following temperature-dependant equations:
-
Cibulka equation:
(3) -
Jasinski and Malonowski equation:
(4) -
Singe et al. equation:
(5) -
Pintos et al. equation:
(6) -
Calvo et al. equation:
(7)where are the contributions of binary mixture (i, j)(8)Every Mi ternary parameter is a function of temperature as expressed in Eqs. (6)–(8):(9)The parameters Biq for the ternary mixture are listed in Tables 3–5 along with the standard deviation σ. Among the semi-empirical equations used to predict, VE, αE and for the studied system, the best for prediction were those of the Calvo equation, and other semi-empirical equations erred significantly. Thus, it is up to the design engineer to consider, the advantages of relying on these relations for the description of these properties as continuous models for the whole range of ternary compositions.
q | i | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | ||
Cibulka equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −9.7 | 5.9 × 10−3 | −7.1 × 10−5 | |
1 | −52.6 | 4.1 × 10−1 | −6.9 × 10−4 | 0.05 |
2 | 1.8 × 10−2 | 2.5 × 10−4 | −4.5 × 10−7 | |
Jasinski equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −36.2 | 2.1 × 10−1 | −4.2 × 10−4 | |
1 | −21.2 | 1.7 × 10−1 | −3.0 × 10−4 | 0.06 |
2 | 8.9 | −5.2 × 10−2 | 6.3 × 10−5 | |
Singe equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −27.3 | 1.4 × 10−1 | −3.0 × 10−4 | |
1 | 10.7 | 6.2 × 10−2 | 2.0 × 10−5 | 0.05 |
2 | 2.4 | −1.9 × 10−2 | 2.6 × 10−5 | |
Calvo equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −24.3 | 1.1 × 10−1 | −2.4 × 10−4 | |
1 | −10.1 | 1.7 × 10−1 | −2.9 × 10−4 | 0.01 |
2 | 8.1 | −1.3 × 10−1 | 2.5 × 10−4 | |
Pintos equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −48.9 | 3.3 × 10−1 | −6.0 × 10−4 | |
1 | −33.7 | 2.8 × 10−1 | −4.6 × 10−4 | 0.05 |
2 | 1.4 × 10−1 | −1.2 × 10−4 | 1.3 × 10−7 |
q | i | σ(αE) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | ||
Cibulka equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −6.9 × 10−2 | 3.0 × 10−4 | −6.6 × 10−7 | |
1 | 1.0 × 10−1 | −4.8 × 10−4 | 9.7 × 10−9 | 0.0003 |
2 | −1.8 × 10−4 | 1.3 × 10−6 | −1.8 × 10−9 | |
Jasinski equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −1.4 × 10−2 | 5.9 × 10−5 | 1.6 × 10−7 | |
1 | −1.3 × 10−2 | 5.6 × 10−5 | −1.3 × 10−7 | 0.0002 |
2 | −1.1 × 10−1 | 5.3 × 10−4 | −1.1 × 10−6 | |
Singe equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −4.0 × 10−2 | 1.8 × 10−4 | 4.0 × 10−7 | |
1 | 1.5 × 10−1 | −5.4 × 10−4 | 1.3 × 10−6 | 0.0002 |
2 | −6.5 × 10−5 | −5.4 × 10−6 | −4.5 × 10−9 | |
Calvo equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −5.8 × 10−2 | 2.5 × 10−4 | −5.6 × 10−7 | |
1 | 9.9 × 10−2 | −3.6 × 10−4 | 8.9 × 10−7 | 0.0001 |
2 | −6.8 × 10−2 | 2.4 × 10−4 | −6.1 × 10−7 | |
Pintos equation | ||||
1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | 1.3 × 10−2 | −5.1 × 10−5 | 8.7 × 10−8 | |
1 | 5.1 × 10−2 | −2.0 × 10−4 | 4.5 × 10−7 | 0.0002 |
2 | −7.2 × 10−4 | 3.5 × 10−6 | −6.8 × 10−9 |
q | i | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | ||
Cibulka equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −8.8 | −4.0 × 10−1 | 1.2 × 10−3 | |
1 | −53.3 | 5.7 × 10−1 | −1.0 × 10−3 | 0.05 |
2 | 1.0 × 10−1 | −1.1 × 10−3 | 4.2 × 10−6 | |
Jasinski equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3) } | ||||
0 | −35.3 | −1.2 × 10−1 | 7.3 × 10−4 | |
1 | −26.6 | 2.8 × 10−1 | -5.0 × 10−4 | 0.08 |
2 | 3.1 | −3.9 × 10−2 | 1.1 × 10−4 | |
Singe equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −26.6 | −2.2 × 10−1 | 9.2 × 10−4 | |
1 | 25.9 | −6.8 × 10−2 | 3.3 × 10−4 | 0.08 |
2 | 3.6 | −2.4 × 10−2 | 4.7 × 10−5 | |
Calvo equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −24.5 | −2.6 × 10−1 | 9.8 × 10−4 | |
1 | −8.2 | 1.9 × 10−1 | −3.4 × 10−4 | 0.04 |
2 | 12.3 | −1.8 × 10−1 | 4.0 × 10−4 | |
Pintos equation | ||||
{1-Butanol (1) + cyclohexylamine (2) + n-heptane (3)} | ||||
0 | −45.5 | 4.7 × 10−3 | 5.6 × 10−4 | |
1 | −29.3 | 3.2 × 10−1 | −4.4 × 10−4 | 0.06 |
2 | 5.9 × 10−2 | −1.1 × 10−3 | 3.7 × 10−6 |
2.1 Thermal expansion coefficient and their excess values
The temperature dependence of density of the pure components was fitted to the equation:
The parameters ai for the pure components are listed in Table 6. The thermal expansion coefficient, α, as in the case of pure components was obtained by analytical differentiation of the density fitting equation:
Component
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
1-Butanol
−3.9 × 10−1
1.8 × 10−2
−9.4 × 10−5
2.1 × 10−7
−1.7 × 10−7
Cyclohexylamine
1.6
−7.0 × 10−3
3.2 × 10−5
−7.1 × 10−8
5.7 × 10−11
n-Heptane
1.7
−1.1 × 10−2
5.0 × 10−5
−1.1 × 10−7
8.6 × 10−11
The thermal expansion coefficients of pure components at different temperatures are presented in Table 1. The basic expression relating the molar volume of a mixture and its excess molar volume is, in accordance with the Eq. (1):
T/K
104 α/K−1
ρ/g cm−3
V∗/(cm3 mol−1)
T∗/K
1-Butanol
288.15
9.298
0.813373
74.296
5423.666
1.226
0.053
298.15
9.403
0.809573
74.313
5427.915
1.232
0.054
298.15
9.504
0.805762
74.336
5434.213
1.237
0.054
303.15
9.609
0.801923
74.360
5440.291
1.243
0.055
308.15
9.724
0.798053
74.376
5444.098
1.248
0.056
313.15
9.857
0.794147
74.375
5443.756
1.254
0.057
318.15
10.013
0.790231
74.348
5437.737
1.261
0.058
323.15
10.201
0.786238
74.290
5424.401
1.269
0.059
Cyclohexylamine
288.15
10.439
0.871290
91.099
5080.063
1.249
0.056
298.15
10.478
0.866747
91.259
5109.430
1.253
0.057
298.15
10.524
0.862207
91.414
5137.278
1.258
0.058
303.15
10.574
0.857671
91.565
5164.096
1.262
0.058
308.15
10.627
0.853138
91.716
5190.462
1.267
0.059
313.15
10.681
0.848607
91.870
5216.903
1.272
0.060
318.15
10.733
0.844073
92.031
5243.871
1.276
0.060
323.15
10.782
0.839547
92.201
5271.949
1.281
0.061
n-Heptane
288.15
12.249
0.687954
113.426
4670.356
1.284
0.061
298.15
12.372
0.683733
113.574
4687.364
1.290
0.063
298.15
12.512
0.679494
113.703
4701.826
1.297
0.063
303.15
12.666
0.675229
113.820
4714.529
1.303
0.064
308.15
12.830
0.670941
113.931
4726.326
1.310
0.065
313.15
13.001
0.666621
114.043
4737.890
1.318
0.066
318.15
13.175
0.662273
114.163
4749.926
1.325
0.067
323.15
13.349
0.657896
114.297
4763.044
1.332
0.068
From this expression, the excess thermal expansion coefficient can be rewritten as:
Plot of excess thermal expansion coefficients αE against mole fraction for {(a01); 1-butanol + cyclohexylamine, (a02); 1-butanol + n-heptane, (a03); cyclohexylamine + n-heptane} at 288.15 K (■), 293.15 K (□), 298.15 K (●), 303.15 K (○), 308.15 K (▴), 313.15 K (△), 318.15 K (♢), 323.15 K (♦).
2.2 Isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy
The isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy can be derived accurately from volumetric measurements by application of the following expression:
This quantity represents the dependence of the excess molar enthalpy of mixing with pressure at fixed composition and temperature. The isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy,
, for all binary mixtures is recorded in Supplementary Tables and graphically represented in Fig. 2. The isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy,
, for binary mixture {1-butanol + cyclohexylamine} is S-shaped and dependence on composition with negative values in the 1-butanol rich-region decrease with increasing temperatures from (288.15 to 323.15) K. The values of,
are negative over the mole fraction range for binary mixture of {1-butanol + n-heptane} and decrease with increasing temperatures from (288.15 to 323.15) K. The
values are positive over the mole fraction range for a binary mixture of {cyclohexylamine + n-heptane} and increase with increasing temperatures from 288.15 to 323.15 K. The values of
for all binary mixtures are due to the presence of significant interactions between solvents in these mixtures. With increasing temperature the interactions of molecular mixtures increased and so the
values are more negative.Plot of isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy
, against mole fraction for {(a11);1-butanol + cyclohexylamine, (a12); 1-butanol + n-heptane, (a13); cyclohexylamine + n-heptane} at 288.15 K (♦), 293.15 K (■), 298.15 K (▴), 303.15 K (×), 308.15 K (△), 313.15 K (●), 318.15 K (○), 323.15 K (□).
2.3 Excess partial molar volume
The excess partial molar volumes,
of a component in a binary mixture can be determined from excess molar volume data using,
Plot of excess partial molar volume
, against mole fraction for {(a21);1-butanol + cyclohexylamine, (a22); 1-butanol + n-heptane, (a23); cyclohexylamine + n-heptane } at 288.15 K (■), 293.15 K (□), 298.15 K (●), 303.15 K (○), 308.15 K (▴), 313.15 K (△), 318.15 K (♢), 323.15 K (♦).
3 The Flory theory
The Flory (Flory, 1965, 1970; Flory et al., 1964a,b; Prigogine, 1957; Van and Patterson, 1982; Abe and Flory, 1965) model has been commonly employed to analyze the molar volume of the mixture and the excess molar volume parting from the equation of the state in a function of the reduced variables:
Theoretical values of
were calculated from the Flory theory using:
In the present study the value of the reduced volume for the liquids and their mixtures
was determined for α value of the mixtures using the Eq. (19). Table 1 shows the data used in the application of the Flory model. The excess function
was computed by analytical differentiation of the Eq. (1) at (288.15–323.15 K) and
of this work. we have also obtained isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy,
, and excess thermal expansions coefficient αE, according to the Eqs. ()()()()()(18)–(22). Values of the isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy,
,and excess thermal expansions coefficient αE, for binary mixtures are reported in the supplementary data and are represented in Figs. 4 and 5. The results show a good agreement between experimental and theoretical values.Plot of excess thermal expansion coefficients αE, against mole fraction for {(a31);1-butanol + cyclohexylamine, (a32); 1-butanol + n-heptane, (a33); cyclohexylamine + n-heptane } 323.15 K. (o) Experimental; (……) calculated by using Flory theory.
Plot of isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy
against mole fraction for {(a41);1-butanol + cyclohexylamine, (a42); 1-butanol + n-heptane, (a43); cyclohexylamine + n-heptane} 323.15 K. (o) Experimental; (……) calculated by using the Flory theory.
4 Conclusion
In this work thermal expansion coefficients α, their excess values αE, isothermal coefficient of pressure excess molar enthalpy , partial molar volumes and excess partial molar volumes , were calculated from experimental densities. The results shown that: The diagrams αE and for binary mixture {1-butanol + cyclohexylamine} are S-shaped and those values for other binary mixtures are positive or negative over the whole mole fraction due to the presence of significant interactions between solvents in these mixtures. This study shows that, the values increase with increasing mole fraction of one component. In the above binary mixtures, expansions in volume and changes in other calculated parameters are due to a decrease in the molecular order in the lattice. Among the semi-empirical equations used to predict, VE, αE and for the studied system, the best for prediction were those of the Calvo equation, and other semi-empirical equations erred significantly. The comparison between the experimental and Flory theories shows a good agreement.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Malayer University for providing the necessary facilities to carry out the research.
References
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1965;87:1838.
- J. Chem. Thermodyn.. 2000;32:1551.
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1965;87:1833.
- Discuss. Faraday Soc.. 1970;49:7.
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1964;86:3507.
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1964;86:3515.
- J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2005;50:1038.
- J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2005;50:1928.
- J. Chem. Thermodyn.. 2005;37:1151.
- Thermochim. Acta. 2005;438:9.
- J. Chem. Thermodyn.. 2006;38:975.
- Thermochim. Acta. 2009;496:71.
- The Molecular Theory of Solution. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1957.
- Ind. Eng. Chem.. 1948;40:345.
- Monatsh. Chem.. 2009;140:451.
- J. Mol. Liq.. 2009;149:96.
- J. Solution Chem.. 1982;11:793.