Article
pubs.acs.org/jced
Liquid−Liquid Equilibrium of the Ternary System of Water + Phenol
+ (Propan-2-yl) Benzene at Several Temperatures
CumeneJavad Saien* and Mahdieh Razi Asrami
Department of Applied Chemistry, Bu−Ali Sina University, Hamedan 65174, Iran
ABSTRACT: Liquid−liquid equilibrium (LLE) data for the
ternary chemical system of {water + phenol + (propan-2-yl)
benzene (cumene)} were presented at temperatures of 293.2,
298.2, and 308.2 K and under the ambient pressure of 81.5
kPa. Experiments were performed based on the cloud point
titration method and refractive index measurements. Results
show that the phenol solubility in cumene is significantly
higher than in water especially at higher phenol concentrations. The phenol distribution coefficient and separation
factor were obtained within 1.490−3.418 and 82.06−300.24,
respectively. The capability of cumene, as a solvent to extract
phenol from aqueous solutions, particularly for low level phenol concentrations, was revealed. The consistency of tie line data
was sufficiently assessed by the Othmer−Tobias and Bachman equations. Meanwhile, the well-known NRTL and UNIQUAC
thermodynamic models were employed to reproduce the experimental data and obtaining the binary interaction parameters. The
appropriate low value root-mean-square deviations confirm the good agreement between experimental data and the model
correlated values.
1. INTRODUCTION
The removal of phenol and phenolic compounds from aqueous
solutions has attracted much attention due to their toxicity and
pollution even at low concentrations (<5 mg/L).1 Phenol and
its derivatives are very important compounds since they widely
present in the wastewater of industries such as petrochemical
plants, petroleum refining, coal gasification, pharmaceutical
plastics, paint, paper, and wood products.2 Thereby, it is
necessary to refine the wastewaters containing phenolic
compounds before releasing into the environment. Beside the
toxicity, the water’s unpleasant taste and odor due to phenol
and its derivatives are remarkable.
Phenols usually form a binary azeotrope with water; hence,
the separation process is very hard. Therefore, liquid−liquid
extraction can be a desired and efficient process. Until now,
many solvents have been applied for the extraction of phenol
such as methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK),3 ethylene glycol,4 and
ionic liquids.5 Meanwhile, the liquid−liquid equilibrium (LLE)
data for {water + phenol + solvent} systems have been reported
by many researchers. Different solvents have been used in this
regard; for example, data for toluene or ethylbenzene6 and
heptane or octane7 were reported by Martin et al. Also, Hwang
and Park produced the dimethyl carbonate and diphenyl
carbonate LLE data with phenol and water.8 Moreover, 2methoxy-2-methylpropane,9 methyl butyl ketone,10 and methyl
isopropyl ketone11 solvents were used by Chen and co-workers.
Recently, Liu et al. investigated the systems of {methyl tertbutyl ketone (MTBK) + phenol + water}12 and {mesityl oxide
+ phenol + water}.13 Among the used solvents, so far, ketone
and ether structure solvents exhibit more efficiency in
separation.
© XXXX American Chemical Society
(Propan-2-yl) benzene (cumene) is a well-known solvent
that has been recommended as a safe solvent alternative in the
liquid−liquid extraction process.14,15 It has excellent chemical
stability, a low vapor pressure, the capability to form two phases
at low temperatures, and rapid phase separation.14 Low density
and low viscosity (0.739 mPa·s at T = 298.2 K) are other
advantages as well as its low price.16 In a research, carried out
by Liu et al.,17 the phenol extraction from water with cumene
was studied at different temperatures and pH. The results
indicate that higher temperatures, but lower aqueous phase pH
values, provide more efficient extraction. Sodium hydroxide
solution was used as the stripping reagent, and it was shown
that almost all of the phenol was stripped from the solvent.
Further, the reusability of cumene was investigated and it was
demonstrated that no obvious decrease in the extraction
percent or recovery of phenol was observed within five
regeneration steps. Pop et al.18 investigated the LLE data for
this system just at T = 293.2 K with no data modeling.
It is of high importance to have the LLE data systematically
for the aim of design, simulation, and optimization of a liquid−
liquid extraction process. In this study LLE data of the ternary
system of {water + phenol + cumene} were determined at
temperatures of 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2 K and under ambient
pressure. The cloud-point method and refractive index
measurement were employed.19 The efficiency of the process
was evaluated by distribution coefficients and separation factor.
Because of high toxicity of phenol, its concentration in
Received: April 27, 2017
Accepted: August 7, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Table 1. Source, Purity Grade, Density, and Refractive Index of the Used Chemicals
ρc (g·cm−3)
chemical name
cumene
water
phenol
a
CAS RN
98-82-8
7732-18-5
108-95-2
source
mass fraction purity
Merck
Hastaran
Merck
≥0.99
ultrapure
≥0.995
b
d
exp.
0.85754
0.99704
ndc
lit.
exp.
23
0.8574
0.9969320
d
1.49005
1.33250
lit.
1.488923
1.332524
a
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number. bPurity stated by the manufacturer. cT = 298.2 K. dp = 81.5 kPa. Standard uncertainties are u(T) =
0.01 K, u(p) = 0.3 kPa, u(nd) = 0.0007, and relative uncertainty of density ur(ρ) = 0.001.
Table 2. Refractive Index Data for Different Aqueous and Organic Phase Compositions of {Water (1) + Phenol (2) + Cumene
(3)} under Ambient Pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and Temperatures of T = 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2 Ka
aqueous phase
w11
w21
organic phase
w31
nd
w13
w23
w33
nd
0.0006
0.0017
0.0035
0.0045
0.0063
0.0081
0.0095
0.0104
0.0116
0.0128
0.0143
0.0167
0.0215
0.0000
0.0099
0.0199
0.0298
0.0397
0.0495
0.0594
0.0692
0.0790
0.0987
0.1182
0.1376
0.1761
0.9982
0.9878
0.9764
0.9655
0.9538
0.9422
0.9310
0.9202
0.9092
0.8884
0.8673
0.8456
0.8023
1.49150
1.49200
1.49250
1.49305
1.49345
1.49365
1.49410
1.49460
1.49515
1.49660
1.49750
1.49855
1.50050
0.0009
0.0029
0.0045
0.0075
0.0091
0.0104
0.0134
0.0161
0.0192
0.0163
0.0180
0.0215
0.0242
0.0000
0.0099
0.0199
0.0297
0.0396
0.0494
0.0591
0.0688
0.0784
0.0983
0.1178
0.1369
0.1756
0.9984
0.9870
0.9755
0.9626
0.9512
0.9400
0.9273
0.9149
0.9023
0.8853
0.8641
0.8414
0.8001
1.49001
1.49110
1.49150
1.49195
1.49253
1.49300
1.49345
1.49425
1.49475
1.49545
1.49675
1.49745
1.49995
0.0011
0.0047
0.0061
0.0089
0.0100
0.0122
0.0157
0.0198
0.0230
0.0242
0.0249
0.0268
0.0000
0.0099
0.0198
0.0297
0.0395
0.0493
0.0590
0.0686
0.0976
0.1170
0.1365
0.1751
0.9988
0.9852
0.9739
0.9613
0.9503
0.9383
0.9251
0.9115
0.8792
0.8587
0.8385
0.7979
1.48590
1.48640
1.48670
1.48715
1.48780
1.48835
1.48870
1.48940
1.49195
1.49310
1.49410
1.49665
293.2 K
0.9998
0.9892
0.9790
0.9686
0.9580
0.9477
0.9371
0.9270
0.9168
0.0000
0.0099
0.0199
0.0299
0.0399
0.0498
0.0612
0.0697
0.0797
0.0001
0.0007
0.0009
0.0013
0.0019
0.0023
0.0029
0.0031
0.0033
1.33350
1.33495
1.33675
1.33910
1.34125
1.34305
1.34495
1.34625
1.34745
0.9996
0.9890
0.9784
0.9682
0.9578
0.9475
0.9370
0.9268
0.9167
0.0000
0.0099
0.0199
0.0299
0.0399
0.0498
0.0612
0.0697
0.0797
0.0003
0.0009
0.0015
0.0017
0.0021
0.0025
0.0031
0.0033
0.0035
1.33300
1.33495
1.33670
1.33895
1.34040
1.34240
1.34345
1.34520
1.34663
0.9994
0.9886
0.9782
0.9678
0.9577
0.9471
0.9368
0.9262
0.9161
0.0000
0.0099
0.0199
0.0299
0.0399
0.0498
0.0611
0.0697
0.0796
0.0005
0.0013
0.0017
0.0021
0.0023
0.0029
0.0033
0.0039
0.0041
1.33195
1.33370
1.33515
1.33695
1.33950
1.34095
1.34280
1.34410
1.34605
298.2 K
308.2 K
a
Standard uncertainties are u(T) = 0.1 K, u(nd) = 0.0007, u(p) = 0.3 kPa, and u(w) = 0.002 except u(w31) = 0.0005.
conventional wastewaters does not reach high levels.20 So, a
relevant practical phenol concentration range in aqueous phase
was considered. The nonrandom two-liquid (NRTL) and the
universal quasichemical (UNIQUAC) thermodynamic models
were applied to correlate the experimental LLE data and to
determine interaction parameters using the Aspen Plus
simulator. The experimental tie-line data were tested by
Othmer−Tobias21 and Bachman22 equations. Also, the rootmean-square deviations between experimental and simulated
data were determined.
B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Figure 1. Comparison of the mass fractions of cumene in water solution (▲), w31; and water in cumene solution (●), w13; with the corresponding
literature data27,28 (△ and ○).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Materials. Phenol and cumene were supplied from
Merck with mass fraction purities of more than 0.995 and 0.99,
Figure 3. Dependency of mass fractions of cumene in aqueous and
organic phases on the refractive index under ambient pressure of p =
81.5 kPa and temperatures of: ■, T = 293.2 K; ●, T = 298.2 K; ▲, T =
308.2 K.
Figure 2. Dependency of phenol mass fractions on the refractive index
of cloudy solutions under the ambient pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and
temperatures of: ■, T = 293.2 K; ●, T = 298.2 K; ▲, T = 308.2 K.
2.2. Measurements. The experimental LLE data were
determined using an equilibrium jacketed cell (about 5 cm3
volume) equipped with a magnetic stirrer and based on the
titration cloud point method as described in the previous
works.25,26 The temperature of the cell was controlled by the
circulating water, conducted by the external stream of a
thermostat (Julabo, Germany) controlled by a thermocouple
with an uncertainty of 0.01 K, and its accuracy was examined by
means of an accurate thermometer (Amadigit, ad 3000th,
percica, Germany). An electronic Ohaus balance (Adventurer,
Pro AV264, Switzerland, uncertainty 0.0001 g) was used to
weigh all prepared samples to the desired values.
To obtain the dependency of refractive index and solute
concentration for cloud point method, binary mixtures (phenol
+ water) and (phenol + cumene) of known overall
respectively, and were used without further purification. Fresh
deionized water with the ionic conductivity <0.08 μS·cm−1 was
produced from a deionizer apparatus (Hastaran Co). The
source, purity grade, density, and refractive index of the
chemicals are summarized in Table 1. There is a good
agreement with the literature data. The densities of liquids were
measured by means of an oscillating U-tube densimeter (Anton
Paar DMA4500, Austria). The apparatus was calibrated with
dry air and bidistilled fresh water. The refractive index of the
components were measured with an Abbe refractometer (AR4
Kruss, Germany). The standard uncertainty in refractive index
measurements was 0.0007, and the relative uncertainty of
density was 0.001.
C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
As Temp Increases, slippage of phenol to aqueous in extraction will increases
due to increased solubility of phenol in water.
Article
Table 3. Experimental Tie-Lines for the Ternary System of {Water (1) + Phenol (2) + Cumene (3)} under the Ambient
Pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and Temperatures of T = 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2 Ka
aqueous phase
w11
0.9799
0.9737
0.9661
0.9579
0.9543
0.9518
0.9487
0.9450
0.9427
w21
Phenol in aqueous water
0.0191
0.0251
0.0324
0.0403
0.0438
0.0463
0.0492
0.0528
0.0549
organic phase
w31
w13
w23
w33
D2
S
0.0342
0.0516
0.0826
0.1194
0.1474
0.1581
0.1610
0.1652
0.1774
0.9598
0.9405
0.9061
0.8652
0.8340
0.8222
0.8190
0.8142
0.8007
1.7916
2.0975
2.5489
2.9638
3.3657
3.4182
3.2700
3.1322
3.2304
300.24
258.78
219.30
185.34
174.18
165.78
155.52
144.95
139.85
0.0299
0.0558
0.0862
0.1140
0.1445
0.1583
0.1685
0.1768
0.1777
0.9624
0.9331
0.8985
0.8671
0.8326
0.8169
0.8054
0.7960
0.7949
1.8698
1.9692
2.5443
2.6687
2.8366
2.8165
2.9663
2.7693
2.7193
240.58
172.54
162.29
135.61
117.56
107.40
107.18
95.25
93.41
0.0241
0.0397
0.0710
0.0906
0.1101
0.1242
0.1461
0.1658
0.1751
0.9673
0.9493
0.9133
0.8908
0.8683
0.8521
0.8269
0.8042
0.7936
1.4904
1.6244
2.0801
2.2211
2.3781
2.5168
2.7740
2.8903
2.7467
172.49
145.87
128.86
114.86
105.46
101.23
97.52
91.02
82.06
293.2 K
0.0009
0.0011
0.0014
0.0017
0.0018
0.0019
0.0020
0.0022
0.0023
0.0058
0.0077
0.0112
0.0153
0.0184
0.0196
0.0199
0.0204
0.0217
298.2 K
0.9831
0.9703
0.9646
0.9554
0.9469
0.9414
0.9408
0.9335
0.9323
0.0160
0.0283
0.0339
0.0427
0.0509
0.0562
0.0568
0.0639
0.065
0.0008
0.0013
0.0015
0.0018
0.0021
0.0023
0.0023
0.0026
0.0027
0.0076
0.0110
0.0151
0.0188
0.0228
0.0246
0.0260
0.0271
0.0272
0.9825
0.9739
0.9638
0.9569
0.9511
0.9479
0.9445
0.9396
0.9329
0.0162
0.0245
0.0342
0.0408
0.0463
0.0494
0.0527
0.0574
0.0637
0.0013
0.0016
0.0020
0.0023
0.0025
0.0027
0.0028
0.0030
0.0033
0.0084
0.0108
0.0155
0.0185
0.0214
0.0235
0.0268
0.0298
0.0312
308.2 K
a
Standard uncertainties are u(T) = 0.1 K, u(p) = 0.3 kPa, and u(w) = 0.002 except u(w31) = 0.0005.
refractive index increased with the increase of phenol mass
fraction because of the higher refractive index of phenol,
compared to water. A similar explanation is also corresponding
when phenol was added to cumene.
A number of firmly closed miniature equilibrium cells were
used to obtain binodal curves and tie line data. Three used
components (water, phenol, and cumene) with specified mass
fractions were introduced to the cells and were agitated
vigorously by a shaking water bath (N-BIOTEK-304), while
temperatures were set at 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2 K (uncertainty
of 0.1 K). The content of the cells was shaking for 4 h at 175
rpm, then left to settle for 12 h to complete separation of
phases under a specified temperature. After reaching phase
equilibrium, each phase layer (top organic phase and the
bottom aqueous phase) was carefully sampled by a syringe and
analyzed via measuring their refractive index. The unknown
compositions were determined by using calibration curves. All
experiments were carried out under ambient pressure of 81.5
kPa. A similar procedure for determination of the composition
of phases has been employed by a number of investigators.19,29
compositions were introduced to the cell and stirred at constant
temperature. The third component (cumene or water) was
titrated into the cell with a microburet and were agitated
vigorously to form a stable cloudy mixture. Then it was left to
settle for 1 h to phase splitting, and samples of the mixture were
collected by a syringe (uncertainty in mass fraction u(w) =
0.002 except u(w31) = 0.0005). Generally, wi1 and wi3 refer to
the mass fractions of the ith (water = 1, phenol = 2, and
cumene = 3) components in the aqueous and organic phases,
respectively. Measurements for each mass fraction were
repeated at least three times; the refractive index of samples
was measured, and the average value was considered for
calibration of the known sample mass fractions. It is worth
noting that refractometer was connected on line to the
circulating water stream from the thermostat and temperature
of the refractometer was retained constant at the same
temperature of mixtures.
The data of calibration curves and refractive indexes are
presented in Table 2. Presented in Figure 1 is the comparison
between data in this work with those reported in the literature
for the case of the absence of phenol.27,28 Totally, there is a
very low mutual solubility for cumene and water. The appeared
difference could be due to different dominant conditions,
analysis method, and ambient pressure.
The relationships of mass fraction and refractive index are
presented in Figures 2 and 3. Calibration curves show that the
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Tie-Line Data. The obtained LLE data for ternary
system {water + phenol + cumene} at 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2
K are listed in Table 3. Results show that the solubility of water
in organic phase is increased with increasing phenol mass
D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Figure 4. Ternary system of {water + phenol + cumene} under the ambient pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and temperatures of T = 293.2 K (a), T = 298.2
K (b), and T = 308.2 K (c); ■ and solid lines are experimental tie lines; ● and dashed lines are NRTL correlated tie lines; ▲ and dotted lines are
UNIQUAC correlated tie lines; ☆ and dash−dotted lines are Pop et al.18 tie-line data at T = 293.2 K.
fraction; however, the solubility of cumene in water is almost
nil within the used range of concentrations. The phase behavior
for the ternary system is shown in Figure 4 for different used
temperatures. As is observed, phenol + cumene is the
completely miscible liquid pair; water + phenol is the partial
miscible pair, and the water + cumene is the immiscible pair.
This system therefore behaves as a type-2 LLE.30 The slope of
tie-lines clearly shows that affinity of phenol to dissolve in
cumene is higher than in water at higher concentrations of
phenol. Tie-line data reported by Pop et al.18 at 293.2 are also
presented in Figure 4. As is observed, there is a reasonable
agreement between data.
To evaluate the efficiency of phenol extraction by cumene,
the separation factor was calculated from
S=
D2
D1
(1)
where D1 and D2 are the distribution coefficients of water and
phenol, as
w
D1 = 13
w11
(2)
D2 =
w23
w21
(3)
The corresponding D2 and S values are listed in Table 3. The
variation of D2 and S are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
According to the results, distribution coefficient of phenol is
E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Bachman
A1
B1
R
293.2
298.2
308.2
−2.0426
−1.6958
−1.7837
0.5791
0.7186
0.6430
0.9890
0.9883
0.9914
A2
B2
R2
−0.2155
−0.2967
−0.2735
1.198
1.2829
1.2546
0.9989
0.9984
0.9972
(5)
exp
cal 2
∑i ∑m ∑n (wimn
− wimn
)
6N
(6)
cal
where wexp
imn and wimn are the experimental and correlated mass
fractions of the components in which i = 1, 2, 3 in phases, m =
I, II, and on tie lines n = 1, 2, ..., N. The obtained very low rmsd
values, given in Table 5, indicate a satisfactory agreement
between experimental and simulation data.
Table 4. Fitting Parameters in Othmer−Tobias and
Bachman Equations
T (K)
⎛w ⎞
w33 = A 2 + B2 ⎜ 33 ⎟
⎝ w11 ⎠
rmsd =
Figure 6. Separation factor (S) of phenol versus its mass fraction in
the aqueous phase under ambient pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and
temperatures of: ■, T = 293.2 K; ●, T = 298.2 K; ▲, T = 308.2 K.
2
(4)
where A1, B1 and A2, B2 are the intercept and slopes for
Othmer−Tobias (logarithmic function) and Bachman equations, fitted from the LLE data. The parameter values with the
corresponding regression coefficients (R2) are given in Table 4.
Both of the regression coefficients are close to unit,
representing a high consistency of the experimental data.
3.2. Data Correlation. The experimental tie-line data were
correlated by using the Aspen Plus (Version 8.4) data
regression tool for both the NRTL and the UNIQUAC
models. This software employs an objective function, called
“Britt-Luecke”, to find model parameters.31 The obtained
NRTL and UNIQUAC coefficients of the equations for binary
interaction parameters in this work are listed in Table 5.
The UNIQUAC structural parameters of ri (the number of
segments per molecule) and qi (the relative surface area per
molecule) correspond to the number of molecular groups and
the individual values of the van der Waals volume and area of
the molecules were obtained and presented in Table 6. Details
of the meaning of parameters and equations are given in the
literature.32,33
The comparison between experimental and the values
obtained from NRTL and UNIQUAC model is presented in
the ternary diagrams plotted in Figure 4. A very close
agreement is observed. Meanwhile, to represent the consistency
of the data reproduced by the used models, the root-meansquare deviation (rmsd) was calculated by the following
equation:
Figure 5. Distribution coefficients of phenol versus its mass fraction in
the aqueous phase under ambient pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and
temperatures of: ■, T = 293.2 K; ●, T = 298.2 K; ▲, T = 308.2 K.
Othmer−Tobias
⎛ 1 − w33 ⎞
⎛ 1 − w11 ⎞
ln⎜
⎟ = A1 + B1 ln⎜
⎟
⎝ w11 ⎠
⎝ w33 ⎠
4. CONCLUSION
In this work, the liquid−liquid equilibrium for the ternary
system of {water + phenol + cumene} was studied at
temperatures of 293.2, 298.2, and 308.2 K and under the
ambient pressure of 81.5 kPa. The experimental results showed
that the distribution coefficient and separation factor lay within
the ranges of 1.490−3.418 and 82.06−300.24, respectively.
Results showed that phenol solubility in cumene increased with
increasing phenol concentrations in aqueous phase; however,
higher separation factors were achieved for its low concentrations. The reliability of tie-lines was evaluated with Othmer−
Tobias and Bachman equations, and high levels of agreement
were revealed. For modeling, the NRTL and the UNIQUAC
models reproduced the tie lines very good by estimating the
binary interaction coefficients, and it was found that the NRTL
model predicts a better agreement for the system.
within the range 1.490−3.418. Meanwhile, the separation factor
was within 82.06−300.24. Therefore, cumene demonstrates as a
good solvent for separation phenol from water. The separation
factor ranges, reported for a number of solvents, mentioned
above, are respectively 2390−4255,10 1007−2599,12 1334−
3953,13 99−495,19 and 126−168,19 all at 298.2 K. Results
presented in Figure 6 indicate that higher separation factors are
associated with low concentrations of phenol and that the
extraction performance decreases with increasing temperature.
The reliability of the LLE data was evaluated by Othmer−
Tobias and Bachman correlations as
F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Table 5. NRTL and UNIQUAC Binary Interaction Parameters for the System of {Water (1) + Phenol (2) + Cumene (3)} under
the Ambient Pressure of p = 81.5 kPa and Different Temperatures
components
NRTL
UNIQUAC
T (K)
i−j
bij (K)
bji (K)
cij
rmsd
bij (K)
bji (K)
rmsd
293.2
1−2
1−3
2−3
1−2
1−3
2−3
1−2
1−3
2−3
−614.923
−10000
−645.91
3305.05
−19434.79
−81.563
−333.13
−49290.48
−609.17
−7631.72
−4492.33
1477.50
6043.77
−4213.67
1069.50
−8197.49
−4879.33
1236.10
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.0012
1244.48
−78.6393
312.453
−73.753
−84.390
358.38
1208.09
−80.002
358.62
53.1281
−328.562
−549.153
622.85
−307.00
−617.48
108.508
−290.64
−667.18
0.0018
298.2
308.2
■
r
q
water
phenol
cumene
0.9200
3.5465
5.2709
1.4000
2.7160
4.0560
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: saien@basu.ac.ir.
ORCID
Javad Saien: 0000-0001-5731-0227
Funding
The authors wish to acknowledge the Bu-Ali Sina University
authorities for the financial support to carry out this work. The
work was supported by the University Research Council.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
0.0009
0.0159
0.0022
(10) Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, L. Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for Ternary
Systems: Methyl butyl Ketone + Phenol + Water and Methyl Butyl
Ketone + Hydroquinone + Water at 298.15 and 323.15 K. J. Chem.
Eng. Data 2014, 59, 2750−2755.
(11) Lv, R.; Li, L.; Wang, H.; Chen, Y. Experimental Determination
and Correlation of Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for Methyl Isopropyl
Ketone + Phenol + Water Mixtures at 298.15, 313.15 and 323.15 K. J.
Chem. Eng. Data 2016, 61, 2221−2225.
(12) Liu, D.; Luo, L.; Li, L.; Chen, Y. Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for
the Methyl Tert-Butyl Ketone + Phenol + Water Ternary System at
298.15, 313.15 and 323.15 K. J. Solution Chem. 2015, 44, 1891−1899.
(13) Liu, D.; Li, L.; Lv, R.; Chen, Y. Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for the
Ternary System Mesityl Oxide + Phenol + Water at 298.15, 313.15,
and 323.15 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2016, 61, 2493−2498.
(14) Bailes, P.; Godfrey, J.; Slater, M. Liquid-Liquid ExtractionTest
Systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1983, 61, 321−322.
(15) Saien, J.; Norouzi, M. Salting-Out Effect of NaCl and KCl on
the Liquid−Liquid Equilibrium of Water + 2-Methylpropanoic Acid +
(1-Methylethyl)-benzene System at Several Temperatures. J. Chem.
Eng. Data 2011, 56, 2892−2898.
(16) Singh, S.; Sethi, B.; Katyal, R.; Rattan, V. Viscosities, Densities,
and Speeds of Sound of Binary Mixtures of o-Xylene, m-Xylene, pXylene, and Isopropylbenzene with 4-Methylpentan-2-one at 298.15
K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2004, 49, 1373−1375.
(17) Liu, J.; Xie, J.; Ren, Z.; Zhang, W. Solvent Extraction of Phenol
with Cumene from Wastewater. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 51, 3826−
3831.
(18) Pop, A.; Weiss, G.; Vanyolos, A. Phase Equilibriums in Ternary
Liquid Systems: Water-Phenol-Cumene and Water-Aacetone-Cumene.
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Chemia. 1967, 12, 49−54.
(19) Gilani, H. G.; Gilani, A. G.; Sangashekan, M. Tie-line Data for
the Aqueous Solutions of Phenol with Organic Solvents at T = 298.2
K. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2013, 58, 142−148.
(20) Lide, D. R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 92nd ed.;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2011−2012.
(21) Othmer, D.; Tobias, P. Liquid-liquid Extraction Data-the L-line
Correlation. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1942, 34, 693−696.
(22) Bachman, I. Tie Lines in Ternary Liquid Systems. Ind. Eng.
Chem., Anal. Ed. 1940, 12, 38−39.
(23) Kumar, M.; Rattan, V. Thermo Physical Properties for Binary
Mixture of Dimethylsulfoxide and Isopropylbenzene at Various
Temperatures. J. Thermodyn. 2013, 2013, 1−7.
(24) Cháfer, A.; Lladosa, E.; Montón, J. B.; de la Torre, J.
Measurements and Correlation of Liquid−Liquid Equilibria of 4Methyl-2-Pentanone + Ethanol + Water and 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone +
n-Butanol + Water Ternary Systems between 283.2 and 323.2 K. Fluid
Phase Equilib. 2012, 317, 89−95.
(25) Saien, J.; Badieh, M. M. S.; Norouzi, M.; Salehzadeh, S. Ionic
Liquid 1-Hexyl-3-Methylimidazolium Hexafluorophosphate, an Efficient Solvent for Extraction of Acetone from Aqueous Solutions. J.
Chem. Thermodyn. 2015, 91, 404−413.
(26) Saien, J.; Badieh, M. M. S.; Norouzi, M. Experimental and
Theoretical Assessing the Salts Effect on the Equilibrium of Water+
Table 6. UNIQUAC Structural (Area and Volume)
Parameters
component
0.0017
REFERENCES
(1) Dakhil, I. H. Removal of Phenol from Industrial Wastewater
Using Sawdust. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2013, 3, 25−31.
(2) Deng, N.; Li, M.; Zhao, L.; Lu, C.; de Rooy, S. L.; Warner, I. M.
Highly Efficient Extraction of Phenolic Compounds by Use of
Magnetic Room Temperature Ionic Liquids for Environmental
Remediation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 1350−1357.
(3) Palma, M.; Paiva, J.; Zilli, M.; Converti, A. Batch Phenol Removal
from Methyl Isobutyl Ketone by Liquid−Liquid Extraction with
Chemical Reaction. Chem. Eng. Process. 2007, 46, 764−768.
(4) Chasib, K. F. Extraction of Phenolic Pollutants (Phenol and pChlorophenol) From Industrial Wastewater. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2013,
58, 1549−1564.
(5) Fan, Y.; Li, Y.; Dong, X.; Hu, G.; Hua, S.; Miao, J.; Zhou, D.
Extraction of Phenols from Water with Functionalized Ionic Liquids.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 20024−20031.
(6) Martin, A.; Klauck, M.; Taubert, K.; Precht, A.; Meinhardt, R.;
Schmelzer, J. R. Liquid− Liquid Equilibria in Ternary Systems of
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Toluene or Ethylbenzene) + Phenols +
Water. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 733−740.
(7) Martin, A.; Klauck, M.; Grenner, A.; Meinhardt, R.; Martin, D.;
Schmelzer, J. R. Liquid− Liquid (− Liquid) Equilibria in Ternary
Systems of Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Heptane or Octane) + Phenols +
Water. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 741−749.
(8) Hwang, I. C.; Park, S. J. Liquid−Liquid Equilibria of Ternary
Mixtures of Dimethyl Carbonate, Diphenyl Carbonate, Phenol and
Water at 358.15 K. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2011, 301, 18−21.
(9) Lei, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Qian, Y.; Yang, S.; Yang, C. Liquid−
Liquid Equilibria for the Ternary System 2-Methoxy-2-Methylpropane
+ Phenol + Water. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2013, 58, 1874−1878.
G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Article
Acetone+ HMIMPF6 Ionic Liquid System. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016,
168, 199−208.
(27) Glew, D. N.; Robertson, R. E. The Spectrophotometric
Determination of the Solubility of Cumene in Water by a Kinetic
Method. J. Phys. Chem. 1956, 60, 332−337.
(28) Englin, B. A.; Plate, A. F.; Tugolukov, V. M. Solubility of Water
in Individual Hydrocarbons. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 1965, 1 (9),
722−726.
(29) Laiadi, D.; Hasseine, A.; Merzougui, A. Homotopy Method to
Predict Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for Ternary Mixtures of (Water +
Carboxylic Acid + Organic Solvent). Fluid Phase Equilib. 2012, 313,
114−120.
(30) Magnussen, T.; Sørensen, J. M.; Rasmussen, P.; Fredenslund, A.
Liquid-Liquid Equilibrium Data: Their Retrieval, Correlation and
Prediction Part III: Prediction. Fluid Phase Equilib. 1980, 4, 151−163.
(31) Saien, J.; Daliri, S.; Norouzi, M. Liquid−Liquid Equilibria for the
System Water+ 4-Methylpentan-2-one+ Acetic Acid at Several
Temperatures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2012, 57, 2553−2559.
(32) Banerjee, T.; Singh, M. K.; Sahoo, R. K.; Khanna, A. Volume,
Surface and UNIQUAC Interaction Parameters for Imidazolium Based
Ionic Liquids via Polarizable Continuum Model. Fluid Phase Equilib.
2005, 234, 64−76.
(33) Renon, H.; Prausnitz, J. M. Local Composition in Thermodynamic Excess Functions for Liquid Mixtures. AIChE J. 1968, 14, 135−
144.
H
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00393
J. Chem. Eng. Data XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX