Correlations of Equilibrium Interfacial Tension Based on Mutual Solubility/Density: Extension to n-Alkane–Water and n-Alkane–CO2 Binary/Ternary Systems and Comparisons With the Parachor Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, new and pragmatic interfacial tension (IFT) correlations for n-alkane–water and n-alkane–CO2 systems are developed based on the mutual solubility of the corresponding binary systems and/or density in a pressure range of 0.1–140.0 MPa and temperature range of 283.2–473.2 K. In addition to being more accurate (i.e., the absolute average relative deviation (AARD) is 1.96% for alkane–water systems, while the AARDs for alkane–CO2 systems are 8.52% and 25.40% in the IFT range of >5.0 mN/m and 0.1–5.0 mN/m, respectively) than either the existing correlations or the parachor model (the AARDs for alkane–CO2 systems are 12.78% and 35.15% in the IFT range of >5.0 mN/m and 0.1–5.0 mN/m, respectively), such correlations can be applied to the corresponding ternary systems for an accurate IFT prediction without any mixing rule. Both a higher mutual solubility and a lower density difference between two phases involved can lead to a lower IFT, while pressure and temperature exert effects on IFT mainly through regulating the mutual solubility/density. Without taking effects of mutual solubility into account, the widely used parachor model in chemical and petroleum engineering fails to predict the IFT for CO2/methane–water pair and n-alkane–water pairs, though it yields a rough estimate for the CO2–water and methane–water pair below the CO2 and methane critical pressures of 7.38 and 4.59 MPa, respectively. However, the parachor model at least considers the effects of solubility in the alkane-rich phase to make it much accurate for n-alkane–CO2 systems. For n-alkane–CO2 pairs, the correlations developed in this work are found to be much less sensitive to the liquid density than the parachor model, being more convenient for practical use. In addition, all the IFTs for the CO2–water pair, methane–water pair, and alkane–CO2 pair can be regressed as a function of density difference of a gas–liquid system with a high accuracy at pressures lower than the critical pressures of either CO2 or methane.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".