Parameters of solvents

The overall sorption value tends to decrease with the addition of the nanoclays. The decrease is maximum for the unmodified-clay-fiUed sample. As the ternperamre of swelling increases, the penetrant uptake increases in all the systems (Table 2.5). The rate of increase of solvent uptake is slower for the unmodified-clay-filled sample compared to the modified one. From Table 2.5 it can be seen that the values are higher for THE compared to MEK in every composite system. The higher sorption can be explained from the difference in solubility parameter of solvent and rubber (9 — 99 and polarity. The solubility parameter value of MEK, THE, and the mbber is 19.8, 18.6, and 14.8 MPa, respectively. This difference is lower (3.8 MPa ) in the case of THE than that of MEK (5.0 MPa ). 

Absorption rates of carbon dioxide were measured in organic solutions of glycidyl methacrylate at 101.3 kPa to obtain the reaction kinetics between carbon dioxide and glycidyl methacrylate using tricaprylylmethylammonium chloride(Aliquat 336) as catalysts. The reaction rate constants were estimated by the mass transfer mechanism accompanied by the pseudo-first-order fast reaction. An empirical correlation between the reaction rate constants and the solubility parameters of solvents, such as toluene, A-methyl-2-pirrolidinone, and dimethyl sulfoxide was presented. 

The overall reaction between CO2 and GMA was assumed to consist of two elementary reactions such as a reversible reaction of GMA and catalyst to form an intermediate and an irreversible reaction of this intermediate and carbon dioxide to form five-membered cyclic carbonate. Absorption data for CO2 in the solution at 101.3 N/m were interpreted to obtain pseudo-first-order reaction rate constant, which was used to obtain the elementary reaction rate constants. The effects of the solubility parameter of solvent on lc2/k and IC3 were explained using the solvent polarity. 

Fig.2. Relationship between reaction rate constant and solubility parameter of solvent in the reaction of CO2 with GMA using Aliquat 336 at 85 C.

Eq. (8.9) predicts that the temperature at the focusing point of the NIR light increases in proportion to the incident laser power this was confirmed experimentally, as shown in Figure 8.9. The simple model expressed by Eq. (8.10) also predicts a linear relation between AT/AP and a/X. As shown in Figure 8.10, the experimental results obtained in the present study well reproduced this prediction. From these results, it can be concluded that the temperature elevation coefficient is qualitatively determined by these two parameters of solvents, a and X we can predict this coefficient for other solvents. 

Many approaches have been used to correlate solvent effects. The approach used most often is based on the electrostatic theory, the theoretical development of which has been described in detail by Amis [114]. The reaction rate is correlated with some bulk parameter of the solvent, such as the dielectric constant or its various algebraic functions. The search for empirical parameters of solvent polarity and their applications in multiparameter equations has recently been intensified, and this approach is described in the book by Reich-ardt [115] and more recently in the chapter on medium effects in Connor s text on chemical kinetics [110]. 

The use of the solubility envelope, together with the volumetric additivity rule for calculating solubility parameters of solvent blend and the solvent evaporation model described previously, allows an approximate assessment whether phase separation will take place or not during solvent evaporation. 

Figure 19 Plot of calculated solubilities versus solubility parameter of solvents.

The structural constraints used in the first case study namely, Eqn s 27,28 and 29 are used again. The melting point, boiling point and flash point, are used as constraints for both solvent and anti-solvent. Since the solvent needs to have high solubility for solute and the anti-solvent needs to have low solubility for the solute limits of 17 <8 < 19 and 5 > 30 (Eqn s. 33 and 37) are placed on the solubility parameters of solvent and anti-solvents respectively. Eqn.38 gives the necessary condition for phase stability (Bernard et al., 1967), which needs to be satisfied for the solvent-anti solvent pairs to be miscible with each other. Eqn. 39 gives the solid-liquid equilibrium constraint. 

Another type of ternary electrolyte system consists of two solvents and one salt, such as methanol-water-NaBr. Vapor-liquid equilibrium of such mixed solvent electrolyte systems has never been studied with a thermodynamic model that takes into account the presence of salts explicitly. However, it should be recognized that the interaction parameters of solvent-salt binary systems are functions of the mixed solvent dielectric constant since the ion-molecular electrostatic interaction energies, gma and gmc, depend on the reciprocal of the dielectric constant of the solvent (Robinson and Stokes, (13)). Pure component parameters, such as gmm and gca, are not functions of dielectric constant. Results of data correlation on vapor-liquid equilibrium of methanol-water-NaBr and methanol-water-LiCl at 298.15°K are shown in Tables 9 and 10. 

Correlation analysis of solvent effects on the heterolysis of p-methoxyneophyl tosyl-ate has been performed by using the Koppel-Palm and Kamlet-Taft equations. The reaction rate is satisfactorily described by the electrophilicity and polarity parameters of solvents, but a possible role for polarizability or nucleophilicity parameters was also examined. 

Finally, the solubility parameter of the adhesive and the substrate must be close. Without getting too teehnieal, the solubility parameter is a rough estimate of polarity. The old saying like dissolves like can be extended to like bonds like. More aeeurately, the solubility parameter is the ealeulated potential energy of 1 em of material for eommon solvents. Polymers are assigned solubility parameters of solvents in which they are soluble. Table 19.3 lists solubility parameters for various solvents and polymers. As an example of how to use this table, butadiene-acrylonitrile rubber with 6= 9.5 bonds natural rubber (6= V.9-8.3) to phenolic plastics (6= 11.5). Note that its solubility parameter is between that of the two substrates. 

Fig. 4. Solubility of gases. log. 2 at 25cC and I atm versus square of solubility parameter of solvents...

Fig. 15. Aggregation numbers of barium dinonylnaphtalene sulfonate versus solubility parameter of solvents. [J. Phys, Chem. 74, 1817 (1970)]...

It follows from Eq. (7.12) that only positive values of y are permitted, whereas it was mentioned above that the criterion for complete solvent-polymer miscibility is yn < 0.5. The conclusion is that the difference in solubility parameters of solvent and polymer must be small. If we assume that Vs 80 cm3/mol = 0.8 x 10-4 m3/mol, then at room temperature, the maximum value of l<5p-<5sl would be 4 (MJ/m3)1/2 = 2 (cal/cm3)1/2. This number, of course, depends strongly on the liquid molar volume. 

There are many sources of data for the solubility parameters of solvents and polymers. Daubert and Danner (1990) have compiled accurate solubility parameters for over 1250 industrially important low molecular weight compounds. Barton (1983, 1990) has tabulated solubility parameters for most of the industrially important polymers. 

The failure of the solvent relative permittivity to represent solute/solvent interactions has led to the definition of polarity in terms of empirical parameters. Such attempts at obtaining better parameters of solvent polarity by choosing a solvent-dependent standard system and looking at the changes in parameters of that system when the solvent is changed e.g. rate constants of solvent-dependent reactions or spectral shifts of solvatochromic dyes) are treated in Chapter 7. 

FA of data matrices containing 35 physicochemical constants and empirical parameters of solvent polarity (c/ Chapter 7) for 85 solvents has been carried out by Svoboda et al. [140]. An orthogonal set of four parameters was extracted from these data, which could be correlated to solvent polarity as expressed by the Kirkwood function (fir — l)/(2fir + 1), to solvent polarizability as expressed by the refractive index function (rfi — + ), as well as to the solvent Lewis acidity and basicity. Thus,... 

Another problem that has been tackled by multivariate statistical methods is the characterization of the solvation capability of organic solvents based on empirical parameters of solvent polarity (see Chapter 7). Since such empirical parameters of solvent polarity are derived from carefully selected, strongly solvent-dependent reference processes, they are molecular-microscopic parameters. The polarity of solvents thus defined cannot be described by macroscopic, bulk solvent characteristics such as relative permittivities, refractive indices, etc., or functions thereof. For the quantitative correlation of solvent-dependent processes with solvent polarities, a large variety of empirical parameters of solvent polarity have been introduced (see Chapter 7). While some solvent polarity parameters are defined to describe an individual, more specific solute/solvent interaetion, others do not separate specific solute/solvent interactions and are referred to as general solvent polarity scales. Consequently, single- and multi-parameter correlation equations have been developed for the description of all kinds of solvent effects, and the question arises as to how many empirical parameters are really necessary for the correlation analysis of solvent-dependent processes such as chemical equilibria, reaction rates, or absorption spectra. 

A quantitative description of the influence of the solvent on the position of chemical equilibria by means of physical or empirical parameters of solvent polarity is only possible in favourable and simple cases due to the complexity of intermolecular solute/solvent interactions. However, much progress has recently been made in theoretical calculations of solvation enthalpies of solutes that can participate as reaction partners in chemical equilibria see the end of Section 2.3 and references [355-364] to Chapter 2. If the solvation enthalpies of all participants in a chemical equilibrium reaction carried out in solvents of different polarity are known, then the solvent influence on this equilibrium can be quantifled. A compilation of about a hundred examples of the application of continuum solvation models to acid/base, tautomeric, conformational, and other equilibria can be found in reference [231]. 

A wide variety of different theoretical [e.g. Kirkwood function) and empirical cf. Chapter 7) parameters of solvent polarity have successfully been tested using multivariate statistical methods in order to model the solvent-induced changes in keto/enol equilibria [134],... 

A linear correlation has been found between the solvent-dependent AG° values and the empirical parameter of solvent polarity, t(30) (see Section 7.4). Thus, the host/guest binding strength increases steadily on going from nonpolar solvents to water, thus shifting the complexation equilibrium more and more to the right-hand side with increasing solvent polarity. 

Attempts have been made to correlate the influence of solvents on enzyme activity, stability, and selectivity with physicochemical solvent characteristics such as relative permittivity, dipole moment, water miscibility, and hydrophobicity, as well as empirieal parameters of solvent polarity. However, no rationale of general validity has been found, except the simple rule that nonpolar hydrophobic solvents are generally better than polar hydrophilic ones. The best correlations are often obtained with the logarithm of the 1-octanol/water partition coefficient, Ig Pq/wj a quantitative measure of the solvent s hydrophobicity cf. Section 7.2). 

It would appear from these observations that the solvation capability might be better characterized using a linear Gibbs energy relationship approach than functions of relative permittivity. There are now numerous examples known, for which the correlation between the rates of different reactions and the solvation capability of the solvent can be satisfactorily described with the help of semiempirical parameters of solvent polarity [cf. Chapter 7). 

In conclusion, it can be said that the electrostatic theory of solvent effects is a most useful tool for explaining and predicting many reaction patterns in solution. However, in spite of some improvements, it still does not take into account a whole series of other solute/solvent interactions such as the mutual polarization of ions or dipoles, the specific solvation etc., and the fact that the microscopic relative permittivity around the reactants may be different to the macroscopic relative permittivity of the bulk solvent. The deviations between observations and theory, and the fact that the relative permittivity cannot be considered as the only parameter responsible for the changes in reaction rates in solution, has led to the creation of different semiempirical correlation equations, which correlate the kinetic parameters to empirical parameters of solvent polarity (see Chapter 7). 

According to Lutskii, even for quite simple molecules, acceptably precise ealeula-tions of Av/v° still present insuperable difficulties. This explains the growing praetiee of eorrelating Av/v° with empirieal parameters of solvent polarity within the framework of linear Gibbs energy relationships. Some of these empirical parameters are even derived from solvent-dependent IR absorptions as reference processes as, for example, the G-values of Sehleyer et al. [154] cf. Section 7.4. 

---