Equations of state and activity coefficient models for vapor‐liquid equilibria of polymer solutions

Georgios M. Kontogeorgis, Aage Fredenslund, Ioannis Economou, Dimitrios P. Tassios

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Four noncubic equations of state, (EOS) and five activity coefficient models are applied to binary polymer and solvent solutions. Solvent activities at intermediate concentrations and equilibrium pressures are predicted with the perturbed‐soft‐chain theory (PSCT), group‐perturbed‐soft‐chain theory, (GPSCT), group‐contribution‐lattice fluid (GCLF) EOS, GC‐Flory EOS, UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV and GK‐FV models, “new” UNIFAC, and modified Flory‐Huggins model. Free‐volume activity coefficient models (UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV) are simpler and, when applied to polymer solutions, more accurate than the EOS. Activity coefficient models are restricted to low‐pressure calculations and require accurate values of pure‐component volumes. Mixture parameters for activity coefficient models and GC‐Flory EOS have been previously evaluated from experimental vapor‐liquid equilibrium data for mixtures with only low‐molecular‐weight compounds. The GC‐Flory EOS, though more complicated than activity coefficient models, provides equally good or in some cases better predictions. The application of GC‐Flory EOS developed as an activity coefficient model is restricted to low‐pressure calculations. On the other hand, PSCT and GCLF developed as “true” EOS provide reliable equilibrium predictions using mixture parameters evaluated solely from pure‐component properties together with standard mixing and combining rules. PSCT EOS performs generally better than GCLF EOS for polymer solutions considered in this study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1711-1727
Number of pages17
JournalAICHE Journal
Volume40
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Activity coefficients
Polymer solutions
Equations of state
Polymers
Pressure
Fluids

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biotechnology
  • Environmental Engineering
  • Chemical Engineering(all)

Cite this

Equations of state and activity coefficient models for vapor‐liquid equilibria of polymer solutions. / Kontogeorgis, Georgios M.; Fredenslund, Aage; Economou, Ioannis; Tassios, Dimitrios P.

In: AICHE Journal, Vol. 40, No. 10, 1994, p. 1711-1727.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kontogeorgis, Georgios M. ; Fredenslund, Aage ; Economou, Ioannis ; Tassios, Dimitrios P. / Equations of state and activity coefficient models for vapor‐liquid equilibria of polymer solutions. In: AICHE Journal. 1994 ; Vol. 40, No. 10. pp. 1711-1727.
@article{c0bdca2cc23f464887f5612b971c58b0,
title = "Equations of state and activity coefficient models for vapor‐liquid equilibria of polymer solutions",
abstract = "Four noncubic equations of state, (EOS) and five activity coefficient models are applied to binary polymer and solvent solutions. Solvent activities at intermediate concentrations and equilibrium pressures are predicted with the perturbed‐soft‐chain theory (PSCT), group‐perturbed‐soft‐chain theory, (GPSCT), group‐contribution‐lattice fluid (GCLF) EOS, GC‐Flory EOS, UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV and GK‐FV models, “new” UNIFAC, and modified Flory‐Huggins model. Free‐volume activity coefficient models (UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV) are simpler and, when applied to polymer solutions, more accurate than the EOS. Activity coefficient models are restricted to low‐pressure calculations and require accurate values of pure‐component volumes. Mixture parameters for activity coefficient models and GC‐Flory EOS have been previously evaluated from experimental vapor‐liquid equilibrium data for mixtures with only low‐molecular‐weight compounds. The GC‐Flory EOS, though more complicated than activity coefficient models, provides equally good or in some cases better predictions. The application of GC‐Flory EOS developed as an activity coefficient model is restricted to low‐pressure calculations. On the other hand, PSCT and GCLF developed as “true” EOS provide reliable equilibrium predictions using mixture parameters evaluated solely from pure‐component properties together with standard mixing and combining rules. PSCT EOS performs generally better than GCLF EOS for polymer solutions considered in this study.",
author = "Kontogeorgis, {Georgios M.} and Aage Fredenslund and Ioannis Economou and Tassios, {Dimitrios P.}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1002/aic.690401012",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "1711--1727",
journal = "AICHE Journal",
issn = "0001-1541",
publisher = "American Institute of Chemical Engineers",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Equations of state and activity coefficient models for vapor‐liquid equilibria of polymer solutions

AU - Kontogeorgis, Georgios M.

AU - Fredenslund, Aage

AU - Economou, Ioannis

AU - Tassios, Dimitrios P.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Four noncubic equations of state, (EOS) and five activity coefficient models are applied to binary polymer and solvent solutions. Solvent activities at intermediate concentrations and equilibrium pressures are predicted with the perturbed‐soft‐chain theory (PSCT), group‐perturbed‐soft‐chain theory, (GPSCT), group‐contribution‐lattice fluid (GCLF) EOS, GC‐Flory EOS, UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV and GK‐FV models, “new” UNIFAC, and modified Flory‐Huggins model. Free‐volume activity coefficient models (UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV) are simpler and, when applied to polymer solutions, more accurate than the EOS. Activity coefficient models are restricted to low‐pressure calculations and require accurate values of pure‐component volumes. Mixture parameters for activity coefficient models and GC‐Flory EOS have been previously evaluated from experimental vapor‐liquid equilibrium data for mixtures with only low‐molecular‐weight compounds. The GC‐Flory EOS, though more complicated than activity coefficient models, provides equally good or in some cases better predictions. The application of GC‐Flory EOS developed as an activity coefficient model is restricted to low‐pressure calculations. On the other hand, PSCT and GCLF developed as “true” EOS provide reliable equilibrium predictions using mixture parameters evaluated solely from pure‐component properties together with standard mixing and combining rules. PSCT EOS performs generally better than GCLF EOS for polymer solutions considered in this study.

AB - Four noncubic equations of state, (EOS) and five activity coefficient models are applied to binary polymer and solvent solutions. Solvent activities at intermediate concentrations and equilibrium pressures are predicted with the perturbed‐soft‐chain theory (PSCT), group‐perturbed‐soft‐chain theory, (GPSCT), group‐contribution‐lattice fluid (GCLF) EOS, GC‐Flory EOS, UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV and GK‐FV models, “new” UNIFAC, and modified Flory‐Huggins model. Free‐volume activity coefficient models (UNIFAC‐FV, entropic‐FV) are simpler and, when applied to polymer solutions, more accurate than the EOS. Activity coefficient models are restricted to low‐pressure calculations and require accurate values of pure‐component volumes. Mixture parameters for activity coefficient models and GC‐Flory EOS have been previously evaluated from experimental vapor‐liquid equilibrium data for mixtures with only low‐molecular‐weight compounds. The GC‐Flory EOS, though more complicated than activity coefficient models, provides equally good or in some cases better predictions. The application of GC‐Flory EOS developed as an activity coefficient model is restricted to low‐pressure calculations. On the other hand, PSCT and GCLF developed as “true” EOS provide reliable equilibrium predictions using mixture parameters evaluated solely from pure‐component properties together with standard mixing and combining rules. PSCT EOS performs generally better than GCLF EOS for polymer solutions considered in this study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028516141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028516141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/aic.690401012

DO - 10.1002/aic.690401012

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0028516141

VL - 40

SP - 1711

EP - 1727

JO - AICHE Journal

JF - AICHE Journal

SN - 0001-1541

IS - 10

ER -