J. Chem.

Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

J. Chem. Thermodynamics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jct

Vapor–liquid equilibrium of the (water + ethanol + glycerol) system:

Experimental and modelling data at normal pressure
Wagner L.R. Souza, Camila S. Silva, Luiz A.C. Meleiro, Marisa F. Mendes ⇑
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rodovia BR 465, km 7, Seropédica, RJ. CEP 23890-000, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, vapor-liquid equilibrium data of the ethanol–water–glycerol system were measured in an
Received 30 March 2013 Othmer-type ebulliometer at normal pressure. The choice for this system was due to the importance
Received in revised form 21 July 2013 of the ethanol–water separation. The samples analyses were done in a digital densimeter, and the meth-
Accepted 22 July 2013
odology was previously validated with data available in the literature. Since the mean relative deviation
Available online 14 August 2013
was less than 5% in temperature and vapor composition, new data from mixtures of ethanol–water–glyc-
erol were obtained. The experiments showed that glycerol is a promising solvent to ethanol dehydration
Keywords:
since it eliminates the azeotrope and promotes the production of anhydrous ethanol. A thermodynamic
Ebuliometer
Glycerol
model for this system was developed using the NRTL model to describe the non-ideality of the liquid
Densimeter phase. The modeling results were compared with experimental data and the deviations were lower than
7%. In this way, the model developed in this work can be used for simulation of ethanol dehydration.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction volatilities of the original mixture. The mechanism associated to

this phenomenon is the selective molecular association of the sol-
In the last decade, the worldwide interest in developing tech- vent with one of the components of the mixture in the liquid
nologies for energy generation using renewable sources has in- phase. As a result, a given separation can be achieved using smaller
creased significantly. Because of the concern about market distillation columns and azeotropes can be ‘‘broken’’ [5,6].
oscillations and the end of the reserves, fossil fuels are related to It is worth to mention that, in the past, several separating
environmental problems caused by global warming. In this con- agents were proposed to dehydrate ethanol in order to achieve en-
text, researches on biofuels have attracted many investments [1]. ergy savings and/or substitute a toxic solvent. Benzene, for exam-
Besides biodiesel, ethanol is a promising alternative to replace ple, was widely used as separating agent, but due to its toxicity and
fossil fuels. Ethanol is a clean-burn fuel and its use reduces the adverse health effects, nowadays its use is avoided. Ethylene glycol
air pollution. In its anhydrous form, is widely used in the chemical, is the usual solvent to promote ethanol dehydration, but it is a rel-
petrochemical, pharmaceutical and food industries. However, most atively toxic compound and petroleum derivate [7,8].
of anhydrous ethanol produced is added to gasoline. Anhydrous In this context, the present study proposes the use of glycerol as
ethanol also may be applied as a solvent in the production of bio- entrainer to dehydrate ethanol. Since it is a co-product of biodiesel
diesel [2,3]. production processing, there are several researches on new glyc-
Considering such information, ethanol–water separation pro- erol applications. Glycerol is a non-toxic compound and its use
cess seemed to be very attractive. However, anhydrous ethanol as a separating agent to ethanol dehydration may suggest an
production is not feasible using conventional distillation under important integrated process concept, known as biorrefinery.
atmospheric pressure due to the formation of azeotrope. There Moreover, phase equilibrium knowledge is essential for the pro-
are several alternative processes that can be used to produce abso- ject and design of separation processes in chemical engineering.
lute ethanol, and one of the most applied is the extractive distilla- Equilibrium data at normal and high pressures are important to
tion due to the low energetic consumption, investment and establish correct conditions of temperature and pressure for the
operational costs [4]. separation processes and to supply the capacity of the solvent,
Extractive distillation is the vaporization of a mixture with the compositions of the phases and the selectivity of the solvent.
addition of a high boiling point component, known as separating Lee and Pahl [9] presented isobaric (1 atm) vapor-liquid equilib-
agent, solvent or entrainer, in order to change the relative rium (VLE) data for the ethanol–water–glycerol system, varying
the composition of ethanol–water mixture and the glycerol mass
added in each mixture. Oliveira et al. [3] measured the bubble point
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 21 3787 3742; fax: +55 21 3787 3750.
temperature (at 1 atm) of different binary systems containing
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.F. Mendes).

0021-9614/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2013.07.012
 W.L.R. Souza et al. / J. Chem. Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111 107

glycerol and five alcohols, including ethanol. The glycerol-water

system was also studied. Coelho et al. [10] measured the boiling
point temperature of the systems ethanol–glycerol and water–
glycerol, varying the total pressure, and presented the NRTL and
UNIQUAC estimated parameters of these binary mixtures.
Despite the industrial interest, there is a lack in the literature of
experimental data of systems containing glycerol, mainly for the
ternary system ethanol–water–glycerol, since the data reported
by Lee and Pahl [9] are the unique available.
The aim of this work is to present isobaric VLE data (T, x, y) of
the ternary system ethanol–water–glycerol at 1 atm, in order to
overcome the lack of information about this system. In all experi-
ments, the mass of glycerol was smaller than the used by Lee and
Pahl [9]. A thermodynamic model was also developed to predict
VLE data of the ternary system studied, in order to provide a tool
for process simulation.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Chemicals

Glycerol (99.5% minimum purity, supplied by Vetec, Rio de Ja-

neiro, Brazil), absolute ethanol (minimum 99.8% purity, supplied
by Vetec, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and distilled water were used to
prepare the mixtures.
Some thermophysical properties of ethanol and water were
measured and can be compared to literature data in table 1.

2.2. Experimental apparatus FIGURE 1. Schematic diagram of the ebulliometer used in this work. (A) Temper-
ature measurement and sampling of liquid phase, (B) equilibrium cell, (C) secondary
New data were measured using ethanol–water mixtures with condenser, (D) primary condenser, (E) vapor phase sampling port, (F) open point to
molar fraction from 0.1 to 0.9 (ethanol), and three different solvent the air, (G) temperature measurement of vapor phase.

to feed ratio (S/F), which is the relation between the mass of glyc-
erol and the mass of the ethanol–water mixture. The S/F values
studied were 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9. These values were chosen based on
the fact that, in extractive distillation, liquid separating agents ter (GEHAKA, DSL 920 model), with ±0.0001 g/cm3 of uncertainty.
are generally present between 50% and 90% of the liquid phase A calibration curve was previously constructed with ethanol–
[13]. water mixtures of known mole composition, in triplicate. The cal-
The experiments were performed using an Othmer-type ebulli- ibration curve obtained was used to determine the ethanol mole
ometer made of borosilicate glass, figure 1. It was designed based fraction of the samples.
on other works and well tested for other systems studied previ-
ously (benzene-toluene and benzene-heptane). This ebulliometer 2.4. Experimental procedure
is composed by an equilibrium cell, two condensers and two sam-
ple ports to take the samples of vapor and liquid phases. Only the Experimental procedure starts by charging ethanol, water and
vapor phase is recirculated. The total volume of equilibrium cell is glycerol mixture into the equilibrium cell, according to ethanol–
300 cm3 and about 100 cm3 was occupied by the mixture. In the water composition mixtures and S/F values previously chosen.
serpentine type condenser, there is an open point to the air, ensur- Small glass spheres were added to control the boiling and to assure
ing atmospheric pressure (1 atm). The temperatures of vapor and the homogeneous heating. After beginning the circulation of water
liquid phase were measured using thermometers with ±0.1 °C of through the condensers, a heat source was turned on. The vapor
uncertainty. The experiments were done in triplicate. phase temperature was measured every 10 min until it remains
constant for 30 min, when it was assumed that steady state was
reached, the temperature value was finally registered. At this mo-
2.3. Sample analysis
ment, vapor samples were collected and analyzed using the digital
densimeter. Runs were carried out in triplicate.
Sample compositions were determined with the experimental
measurements of specific mass, obtained using a digital densime-
2.5. Thermodynamic modeling
TABLE 1
Thermophysical properties of the pure main components. In order to develop a tool to simulate ethanol dehydration pro-
Component Source Purity (%) Tb⁄(K) nD⁄⁄ T (298.15 K) cess with glycerol, a thermodynamic modeling was performed
using the c–u approach. At low pressures, the vapor phase may
Ethanol Vetec >99.8 351.65a; 351.65b 1.3596ª; 1.35941c
Water 100.0 373.15a; 373.15c 1.3325ª; 1.33250c be considered ideal, and the Poynting factor may be disregarded.
a
In addition, the fugacity of a pure component can be approximated
Measured in this work.
b by its saturation pressure [14]. The problem to be solved in this
Ref. [11].
c
Ref. [12]. work is defined by equation (1)
⁄
Boiling normal temperature.
⁄⁄
Refractive index. yi P ¼ ci xi PSat
i ð1Þ
108 W.L.R. Souza et al. / J. Chem. Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111

with Psat as the saturation pressure (Pa), P is the absolute pressure 3. Results and discussion
(Pa) and xi and yi are the molar fractions of the liquid and vapor
phases, respectively. 3.1. Experimental results
The ethanol and water saturation pressure was calculated by
Wagner equation and for glycerol, Antoine equation was used [15]. In order to validate the experimental methodology, VLE data of
The non-random two liquids (NRTL) model [16] was chosen to ethanol–water–glycerol system were measured in the same condi-
compute the liquid phase non-ideality because it can represent tions reported by Lee and Pahl [9], which used S/F values greater
multi-component mixtures containing alcohol. The choice for this than the value proposed in this work. The results are shown in fig-
model was based on simulation studies available in literature ure 2.
[10,17], which show that NRTL model fits quite well the equilib- Figure 2 shows that the data obtained in the present work are
rium data of ethanol–water system. very similar to the data obtained by Lee e Pahl [9]. The average
Equations (2), (3) and (4) represent the NRTL model RD for vapor compositions and temperature were 2.32% and
Pn 4.32%, respectively. Due to the low deviations the methodology
n Pn
j¼1 xj ji Gji
s xj Gij m¼1 smj xm Gmj
was considered validated and new data were measured using other
X
ln ci ¼ Pn þ Pn ðsij  n Þ; ð2Þ
S/F values.
k¼1 xk Gki k¼1 xk Gkj k¼1 xk Gkj
P
j¼1
As explained previously, the experiments were done in tripli-
cate using ethanol–water mixtures, varying the ethanol mole frac-
Gij ¼ expðsij aij Þ; ð3Þ
tion from 0.1 to 0.9. The S/F values were 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9.
ðg ij  g jj Þ
sij ¼ ð4Þ
RT
1
with c as the activity coefficients, G, a and s are NRTL parameters, g
is the energie of interaction between molecules pairs (J), R is the
universal constant of gases (Pa.m3/gmol.K), T is the system temper-
ature (K) and i, j and m are the subscripts that represent the compo-
y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

nents of the mixture studied.

The parameters of the NRTL model were found in literature. The 0.9

parameters for the binary pair ethanol–water were obtained from

Voutsas et al. [17], from equation (5), while the parameters for the
binary systems ethanol–glycerol and water–glycerol were ob-
tained from Coelho et al. [10]. Table 2 shows the parameters used
in this work for the ethanol–water system and table 3 shows the 0.8
parameters for the binary systems ethanol–glycerol and water–
glycerol.
Lee & Pahl(1985)
Dg ij This work
¼ a þ bT þ cT 2 ; ð5Þ
R 0.7
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
where a, b and c are the parameters. x ethanol (Solvent free basis)
Vapor–liquid equilibrium calculations were performed using
the bubble point methodology, with the vapor phase composition FIGURE 2. Comparison between VLE data of ethanol–water–glycerol system
and temperature as output data [18]. The relative deviation (RD) measured in this work and by Lee and Pahl [9].
was calculated using equation (6).

Experimental  Predicted
 
RDð%Þ ¼  100: ð6Þ
Experimental
1

0.8
y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

TABLE 2
NRTL parameters for the ethanol–water system [17].
0.6
Parameters a b c
Dg 12 508.37 3.3910 0.005840
R
Dg 21 763.53 5.1484 0.003320
R 0.4
⁄
1 – ethanol/2 – water. DECHEMA
This work, S/F=0.5
0.2 This work, S/F=0.7
This work, S/F=0.9
TABLE 3
NRTL parameters for the binary systems [10]. 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Binary systems Dg 12
(K) Dg 21
(K)
R R x ethanol (Solvent free basis)
Water–glycerol 595.94 253.74
Ethanol–glycerol 198.84 697.02 FIGURE 3. Experimental isobaric (1 atm) VLE data of ethanol–water–glycerol
system measured in this work and of ethanol–water system from Dechema.
 W.L.R. Souza et al. / J. Chem. Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111 109

TABLE 4
Experimental isobaric (1 atm) VLE data of ethanol–water–glycerol system obtained in this work.

x⁄ (ethanol) S/F = 0.5 S/F = 0.7 S/F = 0.9

y (ethanol) T (K) y (ethanol) T (K) y (ethanol) T (K)
0.1 0.4882 358.15 0.6086 356.65 0.4710 360.55
0.2 0.6516 354.15 0.6804 353.15 0.6673 355.25
0.3 0.6658 353.15 0.7047 352.65 0.7153 352.98
0.4 0.7279 352.15 0.8005 352.15 0.7367 352.15
0.5 0.7802 351.65 0.8183 351.75 0.7887 351.65
0.6 0.8205 351.65 0.8260 351.35 0.8427 351.15
0.7 0.8969 351.15 0.8588 351.15 0.8697 351.15
0.8 0.9342 351.15 0.9109 351.15 0.9264 351.15
0.9 0.9945 351.15 0.9260 351.15 0.9986 351.15
⁄
Solvent free basis.

TABLE 5
Comparison between VLE data obtained by Lee and Pahl [9] and the predicted in this work.

x Ethanol S/F yethanol, Literature yethanol, Predicted RDy (%) T/K literature T/K predicted RDT (%)
0.9209 3.40 0.9741 0.9886 1.49 366.48 368.65 0.59
0.8464 3.30 0.9545 0.9723 1.86 366.48 367.75 0.35
0.7823 3.20 0.9371 0.9564 2.06 366.48 366.95 0.13
0.7019 3.10 0.9113 0.9345 2.55 366.48 366.05 0.12
0.6346 3.00 0.8801 0.9121 3.64 365.93 365.25 0.19
0.5511 2.80 0.8481 0.8831 4.13 365.37 364.25 0.31
0.4354 2.50 0.7862 0.8301 5.58 364.82 362.95 0.51
0.3071 2.00 0.7081 0.7451 5.23 364.26 361.55 0.74

As can be seen from the results presented in table 2, glycerol vapor phase, as was observed in the experiments. For temperature,
was not observed in any vapor phase sample. This was certified the greatest deviation was 0.74% and 0.37% for the average RD.
by the decrease in specific mass, since if glycerol was present in The results showed that the thermodynamic model is suitable
the samples, the specific mass would be greater because glycerol to describe the vapor–liquid equilibrium of the water–ethanol–
is heavier than water and ethanol. In addition, the temperatures glycerol system satisfactorily, due to the low deviations obtained.
observed in the experiments, around 353.15 K, also indicates that Thus, predictions were carried out for the same system, using the
the vapor samples are free of glycerol, since its boiling point at S/F values adopted in the experimental section. Figure 4 shows that
1 atm is 563.15 K [15]. Figure 3 shows the VLE data presented in the glycerol is effective to ‘‘break’’ the azeotrope even using the
table 4 in an x–y diagram, where the effect of glycerol and the lower S/F ratio. In addition, when S/F increases, the effect of
‘‘break’’ of azeotrope can be easily visualized.

3.2. Thermodynamic modeling results 0.9

In order to validate the thermodynamic model obtained in this 0.8

y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

work, predictions of ethanol–water VLE data were carried out and 0.7
the results were compared with experimental data available in lit-
erature [19]. The highest RD obtained for vapor phase composition 0.6
and temperature were 2.25% and 0.44%, respectively. The average
0.5
RD obtained was 0.43% and 0.18%, for the vapor composition and
temperature, respectively. The low deviations ensured the predic- 0.4
tion capability of the thermodynamic model.
0.3
As a second step, in order to validate the thermodynamic model
for ethanol–water–glycerol system, the predicted results were 0.2 NRTL- Without glyc
compared with the measured data by Lee and Pahl [9], as is shown NRTL-S/F=0,5

in table 5, where all compositions are expressed in a solvent free 0.1 NRTL-S/F=0,7
NRTL-S/F=0,9
basis. 0
Table 5 shows that, for vapor composition, the highest deviation 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

is 5.58%. When the ethanol mole fraction decreases in the liquid x ethanol (Solvent free basis)
phase, the RD in the vapor phase composition increases. The devi-
ations in composition did not exceed 6%, being the average RD
3.32%. The predicted glycerol composition in vapor phase was very
close to zero in all cases, corroborating the absence of glycerol in FIGURE 4. VLE predictions for the ethanol–water–glycerol system at 1 atm.
110 W.L.R. Souza et al. / J. Chem. Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111

1 1

0.8 0.8

y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

NRTL-S/F=0,9
NRTL-S/F=0,5
Experimental
Experimental
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x ethanol (Solvent free basis) x ethanol (Solvent free basis)

FIGURE 5. Comparison between experimental and predicted data for S/F = 0.5. FIGURE 7. Comparison between experimental and predicted data for S/F = 0.9.

1 TABLE 6
RD between experimental and predicted data obtained in this work.

Composition S/F = 0.5 S/F = 0.7 S/F = 0.9

0.8 (x)
RD y RD T RD y RD T RD y RD T
y ethanol (Solvent free basis)

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0.1 3.36 0.87 20.88 1.51 4.48 0.67
0.6 0.2 10.74 0.99 12.34 1.47 8.60 1.07
0.3 4.04 0.91 6.81 1.25 5.91 1.35
0.4 6.28 1.02 12.24 1.25 2.44 1.45
0.5 7.33 1.08 9.14 1.31 3.25 1.59
0.4 0.6 6.57 1.05 4.57 1.45 4.27 1.79
0.7 9.00 1.22 2.88 1.57 2.27 1.88
0.8 6.89 1.28 2.77 1.68 3.11 2.02
0.9 6.34 1.40 1.54 1.82 5.18 2.19
0.2
Average 6.73 1.09 8.13 1.48 4.39 1.56
NRTL-S/F=0,7
Experimental

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x ethanol (Solvent free basis) 7%, indicating, quantitatively, the good accuracy of the model,
especially in temperature.
FIGURE 6. Comparison between experimental and predicted data for S/F = 0.7.

4. Conclusions

glycerol in the vapor–liquid equilibrium of ethanol–water system In this work, the effect of glycerol on vapor-liquid equilibrium
also increases. The VLE predicted data for all the S/F ratios are also of the ethanol–water system was evaluated. The experimental
presented in Appendix A. methodology used was suitable to measure VLE data of ethanol–
water–glycerol system due to the low deviations observed in the
validation step. New equilibrium data of this system were obtained
3.3. Comparison between experimental and predicted data
and the results showed that glycerol eliminates the azeotrope. In
this way, glycerol becomes a promising solvent to dehydrate etha-
In order to know the reliability of the model, the model predic-
nol by extractive distillation.
tions were compared to the experimental data. The comparison is
shown in figures 5, 6 and 7, where it can be seen that the predicted
values of composition were lower than the experimental data. De-
spite this fact, the predicted and experimental data are close to Acknowledgments
each other, especially when S/F = 0.9.
Table 6 shows the RD between experimental and predicted data. The authors thank FAPERJ and CNPq for the financial support
In this table is shown that the deviations generally did not exceed and scholarchips.
 W.L.R. Souza et al. / J. Chem. Thermodynamics 67 (2013) 106–111 111

Appendix A. VLE data of Ethanol (1)–Water (2)–Glycerol (3) at 1 atm and S/

F = 0.9 calculated by the thermodynamic model.
VLE data of Ethanol (1)–Water (2)–Glycerol (3) at 1 atm and S/
F = 0.5, calculated by the thermodynamic model. x1⁄ x2⁄ y1 y2 T/K
0.00 1.00 0.0000 1.0016 378.25
x1⁄ x2⁄ y1 y2 T/K 0.05 0.95 0.3574 0.6427 367.65
0.00 1.00 0.0000 1.0009 375.95 0.10 0.90 0.4921 0.5072 362.95
0.05 0.95 0.3467 0.6566 365.85 0.15 0.85 0.5633 0.4346 360.45
0.10 0.90 0.4718 0.5248 361.25 0.20 0.80 0.6099 0.3883 359.05
0.15 0.85 0.5386 0.4584 358.95 0.25 0.75 0.645 0.3545 358.25
0.20 0.80 0.5816 0.4166 357.65 0.30 0.70 0.673 0.3265 357.75
0.25 0.75 0.613 0.3859 356.85 0.35 0.65 0.6973 0.3018 357.45
0.30 0.70 0.6389 0.3611 356.35 0.40 0.60 0.7187 0.2785 357.25
0.35 0.65 0.6601 0.3380 355.95 0.45 0.55 0.742 0.2572 357.25
0.40 0.60 0.6822 0.3173 355.75 0.50 0.50 0.7631 0.2354 357.25
0.45 0.55 0.7019 0.2960 355.55 0.55 0.45 0.7854 0.2140 357.35
0.50 0.50 0.723 0.2748 355.45 0.60 0.40 0.8067 0.1919 357.45
0.55 0.45 0.7464 0.2535 355.45 0.65 0.35 0.8271 0.1692 357.55
0.60 0.40 0.7666 0.2299 355.35 0.70 0.30 0.85 0.1465 357.75
0.65 0.35 0.7928 0.2066 355.45 0.75 0.25 0.8756 0.1236 358.05
0.70 0.30 0.8162 0.1810 355.45 0.80 0.20 0.8976 0.0995 358.25
0.75 0.25 0.8429 0.1545 355.55 0.85 0.15 0.9224 0.0753 358.55
0.80 0.20 0.8698 0.1264 355.65 0.90 0.10 0.9469 0.0505 358.85
0.85 0.15 0.9005 0.0971 355.85 0.95 0.05 0.9744 0.0255 359.25
0.90 0.10 0.9314 0.0662 356.05 1.00 0.00 0.9979 0.0000 359.55
0.95 0.05 0.9627 0.0338 356.25
1.00 0.00 0.9978 0.0000 356.55 ⁄
Solvent free basis.
Solvent free basis.
⁄

References

VLE data of Ethanol (1)–Water (2)–Glycerol (3) at 1 atm and S/ [1] BNDES e CGEE, Bioetanol de cana-de-açúcar: energia para o desenvolvimento
F = 0.7. calculated by the thermodynamic model. sustentável, first ed., Rio de Janeiro, 2008.
[2] I.D. Gil, A.M. Uyazán, J.L. Aguilar, G. Rodríguez, L.A. Caicedo, Braz. J. Chem. Eng.
25 (2008) 207–215.
x1⁄ x2⁄ y1 y2 T/K [3] M.B. Oliveira, A.R.R. Teles, A.J. Queimada, J.A.P. Coutinho, Fluid Phase Equilib.
280 (2009) 22–29.
0.00 1.00 0.0000 1.0031 377.15 [4] A.M. Uyazán, I.D. Gil, J.L. Aguilar, G. Rodríguez, L.A. Caicedo, Ing. Investig. 26
0.05 0.95 0.3523 0.6496 366.75 (2006) 45–50.
[5] Z. Lei, B. Chen, Z. Ding, Special Distillation Processes, first ed., Elsevier B.V,
0.10 0.90 0.4815 0.5148 362.05 Amsterdam, 2005.
0.15 0.85 0.5525 0.4470 359.75 [6] R.H. Perry, C.H. Chilton, Manual de Engenharia Química, fourth ed., Guanabara
0.20 0.80 0.5964 0.4019 358.35 Dois, Rio de Janeiro, 1980.
[7] D.B. Keyes, U.S. Pat. 1,676,735, 1928.
0.25 0.75 0.6297 0.3695 357.55
[8] M.A.S.S. Ravagnani, M.H.M. Reis, R.M. Filho, M.R.W. Maciel, Process Saf.
0.30 0.70 0.6567 0.3429 357.05 Environ. Prot. 88 (2010) 67–73.
0.35 0.65 0.6782 0.3182 356.65 [9] F.M. Lee, R.H. Pahl, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 24 (1985) 168–172.
[10] R. Coelho, P.G. dos Santos, M.R. Mafra, L. Cardozo-Filho, M.L. Corazza, J. Chem.
0.40 0.60 0.7025 0.2973 356.55
Thermodyn. (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2011.06.016.
0.45 0.55 0.7239 0.2757 356.45 [11] D.R. Lide, H.P.R. Frederikse, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 74th
0.50 0.50 0.7435 0.2536 356.35 edition, CRC Press, 1991.
0.55 0.45 0.7648 0.2316 356.35 [12] J.A. Riddick, W.B. Bunger, T.K. Sakano, Organic Solvents Physical Properties and
Methods of Purification, fourth ed., Wiley, New York, 1986.
0.60 0.40 0.7882 0.2095 356.45 [13] W.F. Furter, Adv. Chem. Ser. 115 (1972) 35–45.
0.65 0.35 0.8113 0.1864 356.55 [14] J.M. Prausnitz, R.N. Lichtenthaler, E.G. Azevedo, Termodinámica molecular de
0.70 0.30 0.8341 0.1622 356.65 los equilibrios de fases, third ed., Prentice Hall Iberia, Madrid, 2000.
[15] R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, B.E. Poling, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, fourth
0.75 0.25 0.8600 0.1375 356.85 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987.
0.80 0.20 0.8857 0.1117 357.05 [16] H. Renon, J.M. Prausnitz, AIChE J. 14 (1968) 135–144.
0.85 0.15 0.9113 0.0850 357.25 [17] E.C. Voutsas, C. Pamouktsis, D. Argyris, G.D. Pappa, Fluid Phase Equilib. 308
(2010) 135–141.
0.90 0.10 0.9403 0.0576 357.55 [18] E.J. Henley, J.D. SEADER, Equilibrium-stage separation operations in Chemical
0.95 0.05 0.9691 0.0292 357.85 Engineering, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981.
1.00 0.00 0.9978 0.0000 358.15 [19] DECHEMA, Vapor–liquid equilibrium data collection, aqueous-organic systems
(suppl.1),vol.1,part 1a,GMEHLING,V.J.,ONKEN, U.,ARLT,W.,Frankfurt/M.,1981.
Solvent free basis.
⁄

JCT 13-197