Phase behavior concentration effects

Many ceUulosic derivatives form anisotropic, ie, Hquid crystalline, solutions, and cellulose acetate and triacetate are no exception. Various cellulose acetate anisotropic solutions have been made using a variety of solvents (56,57). The nature of the polymer—solvent interaction determines the concentration at which hquid crystalline behavior is initiated. The better the interaction, the lower the concentration needed to form the anisotropic, birefringent polymer solution. Strong organic acids, eg, trifluoroacetic acid are most effective and can produce an anisotropic phase with concentrations as low as 28% (58). Trifluoroacetic acid has been studied with cellulose triacetate alone or in combination with other solvents (59—64) concentrations of 30—42% (wt vol) triacetate were common. 

Since activity coefficients have a strong dependence on composition, the effect of the solvent on the activity coefficients is generally more pronounced. However, the magnitude and direc tion of change is highly dependent on the solvent concentration, as well as the liquid-phase interactions between the key components and the solvent. The solvent acts to lessen the nonideahties of the key component whose liquid-phase behavior is similar to the solvent, while enhancing the nonideal behavior of the dissimilar key. 

The solvent and the key component that show most similar liquid-phase behavior tend to exhibit little molecular interactions. These components form an ideal or nearly ideal liquid solution. The ac tivity coefficient of this key approaches unity, or may even show negative deviations from Raoult s law if solvating or complexing interactions occur. On the other hand, the dissimilar key and the solvent demonstrate unfavorable molecular interactions, and the activity coefficient of this key increases. The positive deviations from Raoult s law are further enhanced by the diluting effect of the high-solvent concentration, and the value of the activity coefficient of this key may approach the infinite dilution value, often aveiy large number. 

The influence of electronegative additives on the CO hydrogenation reaction corresponds mainly to a reduction in the overall catalyst activity.131 This is shown for example in Fig. 2.42 which compares the steady-state methanation activities of Ni, Co, Fe and Ru catalysts relative to their fresh, unpoisoned activities as a function of gas phase H2S concentration. The distribution of the reaction products is also affected, leading to an increase in the relative amount of higher unsaturated hydrocarbons at the expense of methane formation.6 Model kinetic studies of the effect of sulfur on the methanation reaction on Ni(lOO)132,135 and Ru(OOl)133,134 at near atmospheric pressure attribute this behavior to the inhibition effect of sulfur to the dissociative adsorption rate of hydrogen but also to the drastic decrease in the... 

When HLD = 0 three-phase behavior takes place because of the exact compensation of the effect of the different formulation variables expressed in Eqs. 4 and 5. hi practice, an unidimensional formulation scan is carried out to detect the occurrence of three-phase behavior. In such a scan, only one of the formulation variables (appearing in Eqs. 4 and 5) is changed, while all the others are held constant, as well as composition variables, i.e., surfactant concentration and water/oil ratio (WOR). 

For a given surfactant, the ability to form a single-phase w/o microemulsion is a function of the type of oil, nature of the electrolyte, solution composition, and temperature (54-58). When microemulsions are used as reaction media, the added reactants and the reaction products can also influence the phase stability. Figure 2.2.4 illustrates the effects of temperature and ammonia concentration on the phase behavior of the NP-5/cyclohexane/water system (27). In the absence of ammonia, the central region bounded by the two curves represents the single-phase microemulsion region. Above the upper curve (the solubilization limit), a water-in-oil microemulsion coexists with an aqueous phase, while below the lower curve (the solubility limit), an oil-in-water water microemulsion coexists with an oil phase. It can be seen that introducing ammonia into the system results in a shift of the solubilization... 

Real substances often deviate from the idealized models employed in simulation studies. For instance, many complex fluids, whether natural or synthetic in origin, comprise mixtures of similar rather than identical constituents. Similarly, crystalline phases usually exhibit a finite concentration of defects that disturb the otherwise perfect crystalline order. The presence of imperfections can significantly alter phase behavior with respect to the idealized case. If one is to realize the goal of obtaining quantitatively accurate simulation data for real substances, the effects of imperfections must be incorporated. In this section we consider the state-of-the-art in dealing with two kinds of imperfection, poly-dispersity and point defects in crystals. 

Several attempts have been made to explain theoretically the effects of flow on the phase behavior of polymer solutions [112,115-118,123,124]. This has been done by modification of the mean-field free energy. The key point is to include properly the elastic energy of deformation produced by flow. A more rigorous approach originates from Helfand et al. [125, 126] and Onuki [127, 128] who proposed hydrodynamic theories for the dynamics of concentration fluctuations in the presence of flow coupled with a linear stability analysis. 

Phase behavior studies with poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate), poly (ethylene-co-butyl acrylate), poly(ethylene-co-acrylic add), and poly(ethylene-co-methacrylic acid) were performed in the normal alkanes, their olefinic analogs, dimethyl ether, chlorodifluoromethane, and carbon dioxide up to 250 °C and 2,700 bar. The backbone architecture of the copolymers as well as the solvent quality greatly influences the solution behavior in supercritical fluids. The effect of cosolvent was also studied using dimethyl ether and ethanol as cosolvent in butane at varying concentrations of cosolvent, exhibiting that the cosolvent effect diminishes with increasing cosolvent concentrations. 

Figure 4. Effect of high concentrations of ethanol on the phase behavior of 5 wt% EMAA3.1 in butane [6],...

Based upon the use of nonionic surfactant systems and their cloud point phase separation behavior, several simple, practical, and efficient extraction methods have been proposed for the separation, concentration, and/or purification of a variety of substances including metal ions, proteins, and organic substances (429-441. 443.444). The use of nonionic micelles in this regard was first described and pioneered by Watanabe and co-workers who applied the approach to the separation and enrichment of metal ions (as metal chelates) (429-435). That is, metal ions in solution were converted to sparingly water soluble metal chelates which were then solubilized by addition of nonionic surfactant micelles subsequent to separation by the cloud point technique. Table XVII summarizes data available in the literature demonstrating the potential of the method for the separation of metal ions. As can be seen, factors of up to forty have been reported for the concentration effect of the separated metals. 

The irradiation of micellar solutions effects the phase behavior and the critical micelle concentration (CMC). Because radiation sterilization of biopharmaceutical products is a common routine it is important to investigate the influence of radiation on surfactants that are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry for formulations as wetting agents, emulsifiers, or solubilizers. In particular, in drug formulations... 

Shinoda and Kuineda [8] highlighted the effect of temperature on the phase behavior of systems formulated with two surfactants and introduced the concept of the phase inversion temperature (PIT) or the so-called HLB temperature. They described the recommended formulation conditions to produce MEs with surfactant concentration of about 5-10% w/w being (a) the optimum HLB or PIT of a surfactant (b) the optimum mixing ratio of surfactants, that is, the HLB or PIT of the mixture and (c) the optimum temperature for a given nonionic surfactant. They concluded that (a) the closer the HLBs of the two surfactants, the larger the cosolubilization of the two immiscible phases (b) the larger the size of the solubilizer, the more efficient the solubilisation process and (c) mixtures of ionic and nonionic surfactants are more resistant to temperature changes than nonionic surfactants alone. 

---