Fluid Phase Equilibria, 87 (1993) 133-152 133

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

VAPOR PRESSURE OF 11 ALKYLBENZENES IN THE RANGE lo3 - 280 TORR,

CORRELATION BY EQUATION OF STATE

H. KASEHGAIU, I. MOKBEL, C. VITON and J. JOSE

Laboratoire de Chimie Analytique I - Universid Claude Bernard (LYON I)
43, boulevard du 11 Novembte 1918 - 6%22 - VILLEURBANNE CEDEX (FRANCE)

Keywords : data, VLE low pressure, hydrocarbons, alkylbenzens, correlation,

ABSTRACT

Several improvements of a static device for measuring low vapor pressures are
described by the authors :
- Installation of a second pressure gauge allowing the extension of the measurement
field.
- More reliable checking of the whole apparatus temperature.
- Improvement of the system in order to eliminate vapors after measurements.

In the new version, the apparatus allows reliable measurements in the range :
-30 <tot < 19OOC
10-3 < psatmmBs < 280
The uncertainty on temperature measured with a thermocouple is + 0.02”C.
The apparatus was calibrated with naphtalene and checked with water. In the latter case
the discrepancy between our values and the literature data is 0.4% in the range 5-280 torr
and 2% for pressures lower than 5 ton-.
The device was used to measure vapor pressure of 11 alkylbenzenes.
The results obtained are in agreement with the few available literature data. They were
correlated with the ANTOINEequation and the CARRIER-ROGALSKI-PENELOUX equation.

0378-3812/93/$06.CMl Q1993 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

134

INTRODUCTION

The work we present has been performed within the framework of a research group
in charge of thermodynamics of reservoir fluids. This group consists of 4 companies
dealing with petroleum and gas industry and 5 university laboratories. The general theme
is the development of predictive models in order to calculate the properties of
hydrocarbons mixtures that are representative of crude oils and natural gases. Each
laboratory is more directly concerned with a theme. Our proper topic is : Measurements
of vapor pressure for pure or mixed heavy hydrocarbons. The results we obtained
combined with those of literature are used to develop a group contribution method
allowing to predict hydrocarbons vapor pressure (see the paper of CONIGLIO et al.. in the
same journal).
In a previous paper (Sasse et al., 1988) we described a static device allowing
measurements of low vapor pressures within the range :
10-3 < P (tot-r) < 10
-30 < t “C < 190
A first improvement of the apparatus was published (N’Guimbi et al. , 1992) . It allowed
to reduce the residual pressure in the “reference” part of the pressure gauge, to increase
the temperature of the whole “measurement” part (in order to limit adsorption
phenomena) and to improve the working safety in the whole device. In addition, the
installation of a stirring system by magnetic drive for the cell improved the obtention of
vapor-liquid equilibria.
However an intensive use of the apparatus led us to realize new improvements in
order to increase its reliability. It turns out that, even over 10 mm Hg, literature is very
poor in reliable data. Therefore we increased the pressure measurements range up to 280
torr by addition of a second pressure gauge. Then the apparatus was used to study 11
alkylbenzenes .

APPARATUS

The last version of the apparatus is shown in figure 1.

Two sources of errors were suppressed :
The first one was due to the difficulty to eliminate the last vapor traces of the sample
studied in the “reference” part of the gauge (Part P2, Figure 1). As a matter of fact, in the
previous apparatus, after pressure measurement vapor was eliminated by pumping with
 135

FIG. 1 : STATIC DEVICE FOR LOW VAPOR PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

A: Cell with a copper-constantan thermocouple

B : Thermostat bath
C : Stainless steel bellows
D : Oven thermoregulated at 200-25O’C
E : Differential pressure gauge “DATAMETRIX” 1O-3 - 10 torr
F : Stainless steel bellows with Pyrex to stainless steel transition
G : Glass traps plunged in liquid nitrogen
1, 2
H : Stainless steel bellows with glass to glass transition
I : Pumping unit (primary pump - diffusion pump)
-3
! : Pressure gauge for measuring the residual pressure (10 - 10.~ torr)
K : Absolute pressure gauge “ROSEMOUNT” 0 - 280 torr
L : Tank
T : Copper-constantan thermocouple
V : Diaphragme valves (High vacuum, high temperature)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
: Stop valve
wl
: Micrometering valve
w2
_-_ : Dashed lines represents the constant temperature air bath
136

by-pass valve Vg opened So adsorption phenomena were likely to happen in the

reference part of the apparatus.
In order to limit this phenomenon, the new apparatus is provided with an additional
valve V4 with allows vapor evacuation into the trap G2 after measurement. The by-pass
valve V3 which permits to check the zero of the gauge is only opened when the most of
vapor has been eliminated by valve V4. The last vapor traces contained in the part Pl of
the pressure gauge are not disturbing because the measurements are carried out with
increasing pressures.
The second source of error was caused by overheating the tubings at about 300°C.
This was due to a too elementary conception of the heating system. Only the gauge was
equipped with a thermostated bath. The result was temperature variations for tubings and
adsorption or desorption phenomena specially for very low vapor pressures.
Now, the whole measurement part is placed in a constant temperature air bath C
provided with a turbine. Thus, whatever the cell temperature may be, temperature can be
perfectly controled. It is set at 220°C because vapor pressure measurements are made up
to 19O’C and it is not possible to adjust the temperature of the measurement system to the
one of the cell because it takes a too long time to stabilize the gauge temperature (about 5
hours).
Finally the last improvement is the installation of an additional absolute pressure gauge
K allowing pressures measurement between 10 and 280 mm Hg. The vapor pressure
measurements are now carried out in 2 different ways depending on pressure.
- For pressure between 10-3 and 10 mm Hg, there is no change compared with the
running we previously described (Sasse et al., 1988). Valves V1 and V2 are closed. A
high vacuum is set up in the whole apparatus. By-pass valve V3 allows to control the
balance of gauge E before measurement. This operation is essential for very low vapor
pressures. Then vapor is conducted to the measurement part P1 of the gauges (V3, V4 are
closed, V2 is opened) : after measurement vapor is eliminated by V4.
- For pressures between 10 and 280 mm Hg there is no point in controling the balance
of gage E. By-pass valve V3 is definitely closed and vapor is in continuous connection
with part Pl (V2 opened). An air back pressure is exerted with the help of Vg (V7
closed). The absolute pressure gauge K allows the measurement of this back pressure.
The tank L is only used in order to damp down pressure fluctuations.
The new version of the apparatus allows reliable measurements within a very large
pressure range (lo-3 to 280 tort). Gauges were calibrated by using naphtalene (purity
99.94%) as a reference substance and literature vapor pressures. Naphtalene was selected
because within a -10 to 19O’C temperature range, pressure varies from 10e3 to 300 torr.
 137

Fowler et al. (1968) results were used for pressures greater than 7 ton: In the pressure
range lo-3 - 7 torr we used De Kruif et al. (198 1) data because their results were obtained
by a static method employing two diaphragm manometers calibrated on a dead-weight
gauge. Then the calibration was checked with water vapor pressure. Table 1 shows our
experimental results and the difference with the literature data calculated by :

6P/P % (lit) = 100 Pexp - ‘Iit (1)

Pexp
For pressures greater than 5 torr ( 0.6 kPa) the discrepancy is 0.4% with the values
recommended by Marsh (1987). Our results are alway higher. These systematic
differences are probably the consequence of a systematic discrepancy of Fowler results
on naphtalene. As a matter of fact results obtained by this author are higher (about 0.8%)
than those obtained by Camin and Rossini (1955). But the pressure range studied by
Camin and Rossini was not well suited to our standardizetion. Our original results on
alkylbenzenes are published without carrying out this systematic correction of 0.4%.
For pressures less than 5 torr, quite significant discrepancies are observed between the
different sources (table 1). They are due to the difficulty to carry on measurements at very
low pressures, even for products that are very easy to purify. Below 0.1 torr (1.5 10-Z
kPa) our values are localized between those recommended by Marsh (1987) and those
edited by Fischer (1988). On the other hand, above 0.1 torr our values ar in good
agreement with those of Fischer.
We can reasonably admit that the incertainty of our measurements at pressures lower
than 5 torr is 2%.
Measurements for temperatures less than -3O’C have been carried out by using liquid
nitrogen as a cold source in our cryostat.

MATERIALS

Because of their price, the products were used without purification but purity was
checked by gas chromatography by using a silica capillary column.
The volatile impurities traces, that are the principal source of error, are generally easy
to eliminate by heating the measurement cell to a high temperature (between 100 and
19O’C depending on the sample volatility) and by realizing a sequence of vapor ventings.
This operation is executed systematically for each product (generally it lasts between
about 1 or 2 hours) and is continued until stable and reproducible vapor pressure
measurements are obtained. The sample purity is also checked after the experiment.
Table 2 gives the source of the products, their stated “commercial purity” and their
real purity obtained by GPC.
138

TABLE 1
Experimental vapor pressures of water, comparison with recommended values (with
their temperaturerange).

6PP% 111 wP% PI

Texp G) Pexp(kpa) s. 200-270 K s. 193.15-273.15 K
1. 280600 K
214.75 1.467 10-3 5.33 -2.46
214.82 1.477 10-3 5.13 -2.65
224.63 4.903 10-3 4.52 -0.32
224.62 4.899 lo-3 4.55 -0.29
234.67 1.547 10-Z 4.37 1.73
234.69 1.546 10-Z 4.10 1.45
244.66 4.460 10-Z 3.41 2.27
253.62 0.107 0.96 0.72
264.54 0.294 -0.90 -0.51

Overall 3.70 1.38

273.41 0.612
284.58 1.351 0.06
289.58 1.857 -0.73
294.57 2.547 -0.39
304.57 4.596 -0.40
314.58 7.920 -0.73
324.56 13.181 -0.50
334.62 21.264 -0.28
344.59 33.073 -0.15

Overall 0.41

[l] Marsch (1987)

[2] Fischer (1988)
 139

TABLE 2
Source of the products, “commercial” purity (1) and real purity (2)

Materials Source Purity (1) % Purity (2) %

n-hexylbenzene Janssen > 97 99.70
n-butylbenzene Aldrich > 99 99.68
see-butylbenzene Aldrich > 99 99.94
n-octylbenzene Aldrich > 99 99.55
n-decylbenzene Janssen 98 99.49
n-dodecylbenzene EGA > 97 99.89
n-tridecylbenzene Janssen 99 99.03
cyclohex ylbenzene Fluka > 97 98.93
1,3,Wriisopropylbenzene Aldrich 97 97.20
Wertio-butylmetaxylene Fluka > 97 98.78
3-phenyltoluene Aldrich > 95 95.50

RESULTS - COMPARISON WITH LITERATURE DATA

Experimental results are reported in tables 3 to 13.

For several products results were obtained with 2 series of experiments. The first one
has been realized before we add the absolute pressure gauge. For some of them, the
measurement ranges have a common part and we reported in tables 5, 11 and 12 the
deviation 6PjP between the 2 series.

Pexu (run 1) - P (run 2)

SP/P % (run l/2) = 100 (2)
Pexp (run 1)
P (run 2) is the pressure calculated for the temperatures of the first series. For sec-
butylbenzene, the deviation between the 2 series is low, of the order of 0.5%, except for
1 point. For cyclohexylbenzene the average deviation is of the order of 1.6% but with the
second series we obtain greater values. For 5-tertio-butylmetaxylene the agreement is
good for pressures higher than 5.10-Z kPa.
For the last two products, we think that the difference between our 2 measurements
series are due to the presence of impurities that have not been completely removed during
the vapor venting sequence (this has been confhmed by chromatography).
Two products had been studied with the dynamic method by inert gas saturation
previously utilized in our laboratory (Allemand et al. , 1986). For n-dodecylbenzene the
agreement between our 2 types of measurement is good. But with n-octylbenzene the
140

discrepancy increases considerably (from -1% to +15%) when the pressure decreases.
We think our previous measurements obtained with the dynamic device were not correct
for this product. Because of this non-reliability we did not continue with the dynamic
method.
For 6 products (tables 3 to 8) we can compare our results with those of literature for
the highest pressures (API Research Project, 1971). We can notice that the deviation
8P/P is generally less than 1%.
Finally for 4 products we did not find any values in literature within the studied
pressures range (tables 9 to 13).

TABLE 3
Experimental vapor pressures of n-hexylbenzene

Texp 6) Pexp (@a) 6P/p% 111

273.73 1.653 10-3
283.63 4.239 10-3
293.66 1.052 10-Z
303.64 2.320 1O-2
313.62 4.866 10-Z
323.59 9.732 10-Z
333.58 1.849 10-t
343.57 3.363 10-l
353.58 5.891 10-I
363.58 9.978 10-l
372.84 1.606 1.24
382.77 2.519 0.83
392.70 3.841 0.52
402.74 5.722 0.10
412.76 8.320 -0.19
422.76 11.828 -0.43
432.75 16.516 -0.42
442.80 22.640 -0.57
452.83 30.575 -0.42
462.97 40.693 -0.45

[l] API Research Project (1971)

 141

_
TABLE 4
Experimental vapor pressures of n-butylbenzene

Texp (K) Peep WW 6P/P % [l]

Run 1

243.80 1.39 10-3

253.65 3.88 10-S
263.61 9.89 10-3
273.51 2.39 10-Z
283.50 5.17 10-Z
293.33 1.10 10-l
303.07 2.16 10-l
312.94 4.05 10-l
322.99 7.29 10-l
333.12 1.219
337.66 1.580

Run 2

343.49 2.002 0.16

353.45 3.204 -0.09
363.41 4.996 0.28
373.41 7.545 0.20
383.02 10.99 0.66
393.10 15.83 0.50
403.14 22.52 1.49

[l] API Research Project (1971)

142

TABLE 5
Experimental vapor presures of set-butylbenzene

Texp 6) Pexp
NW &PIP% 6 P/P % [l]
Run l/2
Run1

243.92 2.92 10-3

253.79 7.99 10-3
263.69 1.93 10-Z
273.55 4.49 10-Z 2.25
283.50 9.33 10-2 -0.32
293.48 1.88 10-l -0.10
303.49 3.58 10-l -0.27
313.61 6.54 10-l -0.40
313.61 6.55 10-l -0.25
323.60 1.136 -0.48
323.60 1.139 -0.21
328.60 1.478 -0.36

Run 2

333.57 1.904 0.95

343.57 3.088 0.84
353.62 4.862 0.95
363.43 7.329 0.76
373.39 10.79 0.29

[l] API Research Project (197 1)

 143

TABLE 6
Experimental vapor pressures of n-octylbenzene

Texp (0 6 P/p % VI 6P/p% PI

Run 1

293.16 1.15 10-3

303.13 3.01 10-S
313.01 6.87 10-S
323.13 1.53 10-Z 15.3
333.15 3.15 10-Z 13.3
343.15 6.08 10-2 10.4
353.13 1.14 10-l 9.3
363.14 2.07 10-l 8.9
373.22 3.62 10-l 8.3
383.25 6.09 10-l 7.7
393.32 9.94 10-l 7.1
493.33 1.574 6.6

Run 2

412.96 2.329 -0.59 3.80

422.92 3.504 -0.49 3.42
432.94 5.143 -0.66 2.51
442.96 7.395 -0.66 1.69
452.90 10.37 -0.87 0.50
462.87 14.27 -1.16 -0.93

[l] API Research Project (1971)

[2] Allemand et al. (1986)
TABLE 7 TABLE 8
Experimental vapor pressures of n-decylbenzene Experimental vapor pressures of n-dodecylbenzene

Texp 00 Pexp (kPa) 6 P/P % 111 6 P/P % PI

313.00 7.07 10-4 332.92 7.27 10-4
323.13 1.9i 10-3 . 342.86 1.76 10-S
343.15 1.03 10-2 353.02 4.16 10-j -3.30
353.11 2.16 10-2 362.99 8.85 10-3 0.96
363.12 4.19 10-Z 373.12 1.83 10-Z 1.65
373.25 7.85 10-Z 383.11 3.52 IO-2 3.28
383.28 1.42 10-l 393.02 6.45 10-Z 3.17
393.34 2.48 10-l 403.02 1.15 10-l 2.73
403.37 4.17 10-r 413.02 1.97 10-l 2.65
413.33 6.83 10-I 423.11 3.31 10-l 1.94
413.33 6.84 10-l 433.17 5.39 10-l 1.91
423.21 1.081 443.25 8.57 10-l ’ 1.77
433.23 1.687 453.26 1.315 1.77
1.97 2.36 0.94

[l] API Research Project (197 1)

[l] API Research Project (1971)
[2] Allemand et al. (1986)
TABLE 9 TABLE 10
Experimental vapor pressures of n-tridecylbenzene Experimental vapor pressures of 1,3,hiisopropylbenzene

Texp 0 Pexp NW Pexp &Pa)

Texp 09
343.21 6.40 1O-4 1.17 10-3
282.99
353.26 1.61 lo-3 3.23 10-S
292.53
363.23 3.72 10-S 8.11 10-S
303.00
363.23 3.73 10-3 303.00 8.09 10-S
373.21 8.11 10-3 312.89 1.91 10-Z
383.22 1.69 10-Z 323.06 4.04 10-2
393.22 3.28 10-Z 323.06 4.05 10-2
403.27 5.95 10-2 333.08 8.12 10-Z
413.28 1.06 10-l 333.08 8.11 10-Z
423.29 1.82 10-l 342.84 1.53 10-l
433.37 3.06 10-l 353.08 2.87 10-l
443.39 4.93 10-l 363.10 5.06 10-l
453.33 7.60 10-l 363.10 5.07 10-l
463.38 1.167 373.20 8.64 10-l
373.20 8.65 10-l
383.19 1.417
383.19 1.416
388.12 1.784
388.12 1.786
146

TABLE 11
Experimqal vapor pressures of cyclohexylbenzene

Texp00 &PIP%
Run 11’2

283.32 2.96 10-3

283.32 2.95 10-S
293.16 7.19 10-3
293.16 7.17 10-3
303.15 1.68 10-X
313.22 3.55 10-Z
323.09 6.87 10-Z
333.11 1.30 lo-’
343.12 2.37 10-l
343.12 2.38 10-l
353.11 4.14 10-l -1.69
353.11 4.13 10-l -1.93
363.10 6.94 10-l -1.69
373.22 1.133 -1.64
373.22 1.135 -1.46
383.22 1.787 -1.44

Run 2

392.97 2.733
402.93 4.104
412.87 6.003
422.82 8.625
432.85 12.10
442.80 16.57
452.68 22.26
462.66 29.70
 147

TABLE 12
Experimental vapor pressures of 5-tertio-butylmetaxylene

Texp 6 Pexp N-W 6PiP%

Run If’2
Run 1

253.36 5.52 lo-“

253.36 5.48 lo-4
263.39 1.65 10-3
263.39 1.65 10-3
273.24 4.39 10-3 3.7 1
273.24 4.37 10-3 3.27
283.32 1.11 10-Z 3.27
293.30 2.56 10-2 2.53
303.15 5.33 10-2 -0.30
313.49 1.11 10-l -0.57
313.49 1.10 10-l -1.48
323.11 2.09 10-l -0.54
333.10 3.85 10-l -0.42
333.10 3.86 10-l -0.16
343.10 6.81 10-l -0.09
343.10 6.80 lo-’ -0.09
353.04 1.149 -0.05
363.10 1.887 0.03

Run 2

373.06 2.996
383.06 4.598
393.06 6.902
403.00 10.088
413.07 14.430
422.92 20.229
432.90 27.879
442.90 37.781
148

TABLE 13
Experimental vapor pressures of 3-phenyltoluene

Texp (K> Pexp (@a)

283.73 2.99 10-d

293.73 8.45 lo-“
303.7 1 2.12 10-S
313.68 5.31 10-3
323.34 1.10 10-2
333.77 2.39 10-Z
343.30 4.48 10-2
353.3 1 8.51 10-z
363.3 1 1.55 10-l
373.30 2.70 10-l
383.20 4.62 10-l
393.32 7.57 10-l
393.32 7.55 10-t
403.33 1.199
413.24 1.918
433.33 4.230
443.4 1 6.119
453.41 8.635
463.48 11.94

CORRELATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

At first experimental vapor pressures for each compound were fitted with ANTOINE
equation (3) :
log10 P WO = A- & (3)
The constants A, B, C determined from least-squares adjustement ant the average error
Al% are reported in table 14.
Average percent deviation Al% from ANTOINE smoothing equation is defined by
equation (4) :
n
Al%= e
Pexp - Pcalc
Pexp 1i (4)

We can notice (table 14) that the mean deviation At is low, generally less than 1%.
TABLE 14
Constants A, B, C (equ.3), m, 5, Teb (equ.5 to 10) and average percent deviation A%

Produits A B c Al% m 6 (cm3 Lb(K) A2Q

mol-l)
n-hexylbenzene 6.50020 1946.435 208.935 1.39 0.726476 101.380 499.25 [II 0.78
n-butylbenztne 6.41845 1779.018 220.982 1.37 0.646827 82.629 456.42 [2] 1.S7
1 set-butylbenzene 6.47915 1781.723 226.989 0.52 0.634494 82.6195 446.45 121 0.76
n-octylbenzene 6.50210 2183.874 207.887 0.76 0.774352 120.114 537.55 [21 2.34
n-decylbenzene 6.37655 2098.329 180.620 1.34 0.853696 138.856 571.04 121 1.96
n-dodecylbenzene 6.66087 237 1.902 182.311 0.61 0.888912 157.599 604.15 [ll 1.19
n -tridecylbenzene 6.13410 2087.968 153.790 0.62 0.963427 166.97 614.45 [2] 2.72
cyclohexylbenzene 6.40072 1971.060 210.674 0.77 0.692442 94.015 508.15 [l] 4.51
1,3,5-WiiSOprOpylbenZene 6.48825 1946.769 197.088 0.86 0.844599 131.14 511.15 [l] 1.53
5-tertio-butyhnetaxylene 6.60576 1940.320 216.429 0.62 0.729467 103.03 481.73 * 0.77
3-phenyltoluene 6.75724 2278.497 211.168 1.19 0.709481 94.198 545.85 111 1.61

* Temperature adjusted by CRP equation

[ l] “Handbook” (1986)
[2] API Research Project (197 1)
150

Results were also correlated with the state equation of CARRIER-ROGASKI-PENELOUX

(Carrier, 1989) modified by CONIGLIO et al. (same journal). This is a cubic equation of
the PENG-ROBINSON type allowing to correlate and to predict vapor pressures for heavy
compounds. Besides simplicity, this equation has the advantage of not using critical
parameters that are usually unknown for the products we arc interested in.
This equation being detailed in the paper by L. CONIGLIO et al., we just will report
the main points.

The equation is :

p=RT_
- _ am (5)
v-b ‘; ($ + yb)

with :
v=v-c (6)
;=b-c (7)
a(T) = a(T& [ 1+ ml [1 - (T/reb)“*51 - m2 (1 -T/Ted ] (8)

m2 = (m - 0.5 Cl) / (0.5 C2 - 1) (9)

mi = Cl + Qm2 (10)

g is calculated by a group contribution method.

For a component the parameter m can be given by smoothing the experimental results
or by a group contribution method developed by the authors.
For every studied product we adjusted the parameter m to our experimental values by
minimising the relative discrepancy for the pressures. The obtained values and the
smoothing average deviation AZ% are reported in table 14.
We can notice that, even with only one adjustable parameter, the modified C.R.P.
equation allows a good representation of our values within a very low pressure range :
except for 3 products the smoothing deviation are less than 2%
These smoothing deviations are due, principally to the dispersion of our experimental
values in the very low pressure range.
The C.R.P. equation becomes completely predictive by using the parameters of the
group contribution method calculated by CONIGLIO et al. We observe a good agreement
between estimated values and our experimental values for n-hexylbenzene and n-
tridecylbenzene (k 2.8%). However these deviations are larger for the other products.
The authors continue to improve their method. The classical correlations of Lee and
Kesler (1975) and Gomez-Thodos (1978) require critical parameters values and lead to
very large overevaluation of vapor pressures in the low pressure range.
 151

CONCLUSION

The so-modified static device allows correct measurements of vapor pressure within a
relatively large range (between lo-3 and 280 torr). The mean discrepancy on pressures,
evaluated on the water results is estimated at 0.4% for pressures greater than 5 torr and
2% for lower pressures. However in the low pressure range, the presence of impurities
traces can notably affect the vapor pressures.

We reported new results for 1In-alkylbenzenes. They are in agreement with the few
values available in literature. We observed a good correlation of our results by the C.R.P.
equation .

AKNOWLEXXiEh4ENTS

The authors wish to thank CONIGLIO et al. for their assistance in the results
exploitation by the C.R.P.equation .

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A, B, C parameters of ANTOINEequation
a attraction energy parameter
b covolume (cm3 mol)
c pseudo-covolume (cm3 mol-1)
C constant (its value does not affect the calculated vapor pressure)
Cl = 0.8508 ; C2 = 2.6144
m, ml, m2 parameters of equation of state
n number of experimental values
P experimental vapor pressure &Pa)
P pressure (bar)
R gas constant (83.1434 bar cm3 K-l)
T, t temperature (in K or “C)
V translated volume (cm3 mol-t)
V molar volume (cm3 mol-1)

Greek symbols :

6PlP 8 percent deviation of experimental result

AI;& average absolute percent deviation
Y = 4.82843
152

Subscripts :

talc calculated
exp experimental
eb normal ebullition

superscript

sat saturated

REFERENCES

ALLEMAND N., JOSE J., MERLIN J.C., 1986. Thermochimica Acta 10579-90

A P I Research Project 44, 1971. Handbook of vapor pressures and heats of

vaporization of hydrocarbons and related compounds, Thermodynamics Research
Center, College Station, Tex.

CARRIER B. These Doctorat es Sciences 1989, Universite des Sciences Aix-Marseille

III

CAMIN D.L., ROSSINI F.D., 1955. J. Phys. Chem. 59,1173

CONIGLIO L., BERRO C., RAUZY E. “Representation and prediction of

thermophysical properties of n-heavy hydrocarbons” (same review)

De KRUIF C.G., KUIPERS T., VAN MILTENBURG J.C., SCHAAKE R.C.F.,

STEVENS G., 1981. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 13 , 1086

FISCHER G., Ed. 1988. Landolt-Bornstein, Numerical Data and Functional

Relationships in Science and Technology, Volume 4, Subvolume B. Heidelberg

FOWLER L., TRUMP N.W., VOGLER C.E., 1968. J. Chem. Eng. Data 13, 209

GOMEZ-NIETO M., THODOS G., 1978. Ind. Eng. Data 13,209

Handbook of Chem. and Physics 1986, Ed. R.C. WEAST CRC Press Inc.

LEE B.I., KESLER M.G., 1975. AIChE J., 21,510

MARSH K.N., 1987. Recommended Reference Materials for the Realization of

Physicochemical Properties. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

N’GUIMBI J., KASEHGARI H., MOKBEL I., JOSE J., 1992. Thermochimica Acta
196,367-377

SASSE K., JOSE J., MERLIN J.C., 1988. Fluid phase equilibria 42, 287-304