Hildebrand correction

The authors express their appreciation to Penelope Brigham and Thomas Hildebrand for their assistance in correcting the English. 

A particularly simple approximation known as regular-solution theory was developed by Hildebrand and co-workers [J. H. Hildebrand. /. Am. Chem. Soc. 51, 66-80 (1929)]. The regular-solution model assumes that the excess enthalpy of mixing can be represented as a simple one-parameter correction... 

The above formula for the solubility, in which also the corrections for the temperature dependence of the latent heat of fusion AH were taken into account, has been very extensively tested by Hildebrand on the solubility of iodine in a very large number of solvents (violet solution, p. 342). Since the specific cohesion (p. 359) of iodine is very high (y/UjV — 14.1), the solubility line only approaches the ideal line for solvents with similarly large specific cohesion, such as Snl4 (11.7) and Sg (12.7), molten sulphur (Table 33). 

The square route of the cohesive pressure is termed Hildebrand s solubility parameter (5). Hildebrand observed that two liquids are miscible if the difference in 5 is less than 3.4 units, and this is a useful rule of thumb. However, it is worth mentioning that the inverse of this statement is not always correct, and that some solvents with differences larger than 3.4 are miscible. For example, water and ethanol have values for 5 of 47.9 and 26.0 MPa°-, respectively, but are miscible in all proportions. The values in the table are measured at 25 °C. In general, liquids become more miscible with one another as temperature increases, because the intermolecular forces are disrupted by vibrational motion, reducing the strength of the solvent-solvent interactions. Some solvents that are immiscible at room temperature may become miscible at higher temperature, a phenomenon used advantageously in multiphasic reactions. 

Often referred to as the solvent cohesive energy density, the Hildebrand solubility parameter is considered to be a measure of the solvent contribution to the cavity term, and is used as a correction factor in the - solvatochromic equation. It is related to the general definition of London cohesive energy between two interacting species ... 

The sodium-lithium phase system has been studied by thermal analysis in the liquid and solid regions to temperatures in excess of 400°C. Two liquid phases separate at 170.6°C. with compositions of 3.4 and 91.6 atom % sodium. The critical solution temperature is 442° zt 10°C. at a composition of 40.3 atom % sodium. The freezing point of pure lithium is depressed from 180.5°C. to 170.6°C. by the addition of 3.4 atom % sodium, and the freezing point of pure sodium is depressed from 97.8° to 92.2°C. by the addition of 3.8 atom % lithium. From 170.6° to 92.2°C. one liquid phase exists in equilibrium with pure lithium. Regardless of the similarity in the properties of the pure liquid metals, the binary system deviates markedly from simple nonideal behavior even in the very dilute solutions. Correlation of the experimentally observed data with the Scatchard-Hildebrand regular solution model using the Flory-Huggins entropy correction is discussed. 

LIQUID-LIQUID CURVE AND CRITICAL SOLUTION POINT. In the now classical theory of regular solutions developed by Scatchard (10) and Hildebrand (5) with the nonideal entropy correction given by Flory and Huggins (5), the activities of the components of a binary system are given by... 

Kamlet-Taft polarity/polarizability, hydrogen-bond donor (HBD), and hydrogen-bond acceptor (HBA) solvatochromic parameters taken from [138,148] 57 and p for TMP were obtained respectively from the correlations AN = 1.04 -I- 15.4(tr - 0.088) -I- 32.6a [149] and DN (kj/ mol) = — 3.8 -I- 163.9)3 [151], where 5 in this case only is a correction factor (not the Hildebrand solubility parameter) equal to zero forTMP. 

The question of uniqueness in the inversion process has been answered (Hildebrand 1965) and is given expression in the understated Lerch s theorem if one fimction fit) corresponding to the known transform F(s) can be found, it is the correct one. Not all functions of are transforms, since continuity and other considerations must be taken into account. But, if Fis) 0 as s 00 and sF(s) is bounded as f - 00, then F(s) is the transform of some function fit), which is at least piecewise continuous in some interval 0 t t and such function is of exponential order. When the initial value of fit) is desired and Fis) is known, the following limit is useful... 

Perhaps the most important term in Eq. (5.2-3) is the liquid-phase activity coefficient, and methods for its prediction have been developed in maiiy forms and by many workers. For binary systems the Van Laar (Eq. (1.4-18)], Wilson [Eq. (1.4-23)], NRTL (Eq. (1.4-27)], and UmQUAC [Eq. (t.4-3ti)] relationships are useful for predicting liqnid-iffiase nonidealities, but they require some experimental data. When no dim are available, and an approximate nonideality correction will suffice, the UNIFAC approach (Eq. (1.4-31)], which utilizes functional group contributions, may be used. For special cases involving regular solutions (no excess entropy of mixing), the Scatchard-Hildebrand method provides liquid-phase activity coefficients based on easily obtained pure-component properties. 

Tables are available in many handbooks for the van der Waals correction constants to the ideal gas law, a and b. For some liquids, these values may be at hand when other data are not available. They can be used to check Hildebrand parameter values obtained from other sources ...

Another useful tool is the Hildebrand solubility theory, which is applicable to apolar and moderately polar systems. For strongly polar systems, it is unable to correctly qualify the compatibility between components. However, the massive amount of interaction parameters data obtained in recent decades, and mainly Small s method, allowing to assess them, make this method quite efficient and readily applicable. The Hildebrand solubility parameter, 5, can be defined as the square root of the cohesive energy density (CED) and it is measured in (MJ m )° . This parameter indicates the polarity level of the component and goes from 12 (MJ m )° for nonpolar components to 23 (MJ m )° for water. The larger the difference... 

In real systems, nonrandom mixing effects, potentially caused by local polymer architecture and interchain forces, can have profound consequences on how intermolecular attractive potentials influence miscibility. Such nonideal effects can lead to large corrections, of both excess entropic and enthalpic origin, to the mean-field Flory-Huggins theory. As discussed in Section IV, for flexible chain blends of prime experimental interest the excess entropic contribution seems very small. Thus, attractive interactions, or enthalpy of mixing effects, are expected to often play a dominant role in determining blend miscibility. In this section we examine these enthalpic effects within the context of thermodynamic pertubation theory for atomistic, semiflexible, and Gaussian thread models. In addition, the validity of a Hildebrand-like molecular solubility parameter approach based on pure component properties is examined. 

Experimental data may be treated according to Scott s modification [207] of the Benesi-Hildebrand equation [221], Technically easier and more exact may appear other methods described especially for the treatment of NMR data [222]. The known stoichiometry of the complex is a prerequisite for obtaining correct binding data. Almost all techniques described in the literature are suitable for 1 1 complexes. The formation of complexes of other stoichiometry may significantly complicate the treatment of the data or introduce a significant source of error in the calculations. Nonlinear curve-fitting techniques may avoid the problems of this kind. 

---