Loading…

Vapor–liquid equilibrium of the ethanol+3-methyl-1-butanol system at 50.66, 101.33 and 151.99kPa

► The VLE data of ethanol+3-methyl-1-butanol were measured at three different pressures (50.66, 101.33 and 151.99kPa). ► Equilibrium measurements were done in a dynamic equilibrium cell (Fischer Labodest VLE 602). ► Total area, Van Ness, point and Herington tests were used as thermodynamic consisten...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Fluid phase equilibria 2013-01, Vol.338, p.128-134
Main Authors: Duran, Jairo A., Córdoba, Fernando P., Gil, Iván D., Rodríguez, Gerardo, Orjuela, Alvaro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:► The VLE data of ethanol+3-methyl-1-butanol were measured at three different pressures (50.66, 101.33 and 151.99kPa). ► Equilibrium measurements were done in a dynamic equilibrium cell (Fischer Labodest VLE 602). ► Total area, Van Ness, point and Herington tests were used as thermodynamic consistency tests. ► NRTL and UNIQUAC were used as activity models to fit the experimental data. In this work, the isobaric vapor–liquid equilibrium (VLE) for the ethanol (1) + 3-methyl-1-butanol (2) system at three different pressures is reported. Measurements were done in a dynamic equilibrium cell (Fischer Labodest VLE 602) at 50.66, 101.33 and 151.99kPa. The experimental data were tested for thermodynamic consistency with total area, point, Van Ness, and Herington tests. Herington test was slightly modified considering the ΔHm/ΔGmE relation. Data were correlated using the NRTL and UNIQUAC activity models. NTRL showed the lowest deviation with respect to the experimental data at the three operating pressures. Quality of regressed parameters for this system was tested comparing results with isothermal equilibrium data reported elsewhere.
ISSN:0378-3812
1879-0224
DOI:10.1016/j.fluid.2012.11.004