MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300845147 · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.5b00685

Mutual Solubility of Water and Hydrocarbons

2015· article· en· W2300845147 on OpenAlexafffund
Carl Landra, Marco A. Satyro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
FundersVirtual Materials Group
KeywordsMole fractionHydrocarbonFraction (chemistry)SolubilityChemistryApproximation errorThermodynamicsHydrocarbon mixturesMass fractionPhase (matter)Mixing (physics)Organic chemistryPhysical chemistryMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate modeling of systems containing water and hydrocarbons is important to support key decisions related to the design, simulation, and optimization of a variety of industrial processes, ranging from refineries, to gas plants and liquified natural gas processing facilities. Processes of interest for the production of hydrocarbons now include widely different temperatures and pressure ranges, making the use of empirical models to simulate the behavior of water and hydrocarbon mixtures awkward and prone to inconsistencies. In this work we show that the use of the Peng–Robinson equation of state using the Huron–Vidal mixing rule combined with the nonrandom two-liquid model and temperature-dependent interaction parameters provide an accurate platform to correlate mutual solubility data for a variety of hydrocarbons. Moreover, the interaction parameters were correlated on the basis of simple molecular descriptors such as molecular weight and the paraffin, iso-paraffin, olefin, naphthene, and aromatic (PIONA) chemical family classification and Watson-K factor. The model shows an absolute average error in water mole fraction in the hydrocarbon phase equal to 34% and an absolute average error in the hydrocarbon mole fraction in the aqueous phase equal to 98% using the PIONA-based parameters and an absolute average error in water mole fraction in the hydrocarbon phase equal to 34% and an absolute average error in the hydrocarbon mole fraction in the aqueous phase equal to 148% using the Watson-K factor based parameters. The method can be used for systems defined using pure or pseudocomponents and is easily integrated within the structure of existing process simulators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207