Simple Models for Nonideal Solutions

One advantage offered by (5.5.11) is that it collects all the pressure effects into a single term. As we shall see in 5.6, many models for contain no pressure dependence hence, those models provide no pressure dependence for the activity coefficient, and such models are strictly valid only at the standard-state pressure P°. To include pressure in those models, we could use (5.5.11), if we have a reliable estimate for the partial molar volume—say, from a PvTx equation of state. 

Both terms on the rhs are at the same pressure and so we could identify the rhs as an excess property. However, it is probably better not to do so because we could choose different standard-state pressures for different components (Pj it. p ). 

When the standard-state pressure is taken to be the mixture pressure P° = P), then these distinctions disappear and the three activity coefficients (5.5.5), (5.5.9), and (5.5.11) are the same. But when P P, the numerical values for these three activity coefficients can differ, though the differences are usually not significant at pressures below 10 bar. However, such differences can contribute to the complexity encountered when trying to use a model for activity coefficients as a basis for developing mixing rules for equations of state. 

Here we introduce models commonly used to represent the composition dependence of excess properties in liquid mixtures. Just as in 4.5 for volumetric equations of state, the models considered here are semitheoretical they may have some limited mathematical or physical basis, but they inevitably contain parameters whose values must be obtained from experimental data. The emphasis here is on the composition dependence of y, because, for condensed phases, composition is the most important variable temperature is next in importance, and pressure is least important. 

The strategy for devising models for activity coefficients is based on modeling g, rather than modeling the y, directly. With a functional form adopted for the corresponding expressions for the y, can be obtained by applying the partial molar derivative in (5.4.10). In addition, if the model parameters are known functions of T and P, then expressions for and can be obtained from (5.2.11) and (5.2.12). This would enable us to obtain the T and P effects on the y, from (5.4.16) and (5.4.17). 

---

We have therefore devised a new method for the determination of the temperatures for onset and end of melting, which is based on a simulation of the experimental DSC-curves. This procedure uses a regular solution model for nonideal mixing in both, the ordered and the liquid-crystalline phase, and incorporates the additional broadening by assuming a simple two-state transition of limited cooperativity, with the cooperative unit size c.u. as an adjustable parameter. This model is still a simplification of the real situation as it is based on the assumption that the cooperativity does not depend on temperature [84]. Nevertheless, this procedure seems to be more reliable for the determination of the phase boundaries as the arbitrariness in detennining the onset and end of melting temperatures is replaced by a more objective procedure. 

We will not attempt to solve the preceding equations except in a few simple cases. Instead, we consider nonideal reactors using several simple models that have analytical solutions. For this it is convenient to consider the residence time distribution (RTD), or the probability of a molecule residing in the reactor for a time f. 

The properties of mixtures of ideal gases and of ideal solutions depend solely on the properties of the pure constituent species, and are calculated from them by simple equations, as illustrated in Chap. 10. Although these models approximate the behavior of certain fluid mixtures, they do not adequately represent the -behavior of most solutions of interest to chemical engineers, and Raoult s law is not in general a realistic relation for vapor/liquid equilibrium. However, these models of ideal behavior—the ideal gas, the ideal solution, and Raoult s law— provide convenient references to which the behavior of nonideal solutions may be compared. 

In an ideal fixed-bed reactor, plug flow of gas is assumed. This is, however, not a good assumption for reactive solids, because the bed properties vary with position, mainly due to changing pellet properties (and dimensions in most cases), and hence the use of nonideal models is often necessary. The dispersion model, with all its limitations, is still the most practical one. The equations involved are cumbersome, but their asymptotic solutions are simple, particularly for systems... 

Note that the temperature dependence of AG depends on the degree of structure of water, but it is not necessarily a monotonic dependence. We have seen that A5 depends on the structural changes induced by the solute, and the extent of the structural changes depends, in an ideal mixture model for water, on product XiXp. This means that in some regions, an increase in X can either increase or decrease the product Xi — xi). In a nonideal mixture-model approach, the dependence of the structural changes induced by the solute is not so simple as xi — Xi), but the general conclusion that A5 is non-linear or even monotonic in Xi is still valid. 

One of the simplest and most widely used models for the thermodynamic characterization of a nonideal solution is the so-called simple solution model . In this model the excess free energy of mixing, accounting for deviations from the ideal entropy of mixing, is taken as an expression that is proportional to the product of the mole fractions of the constituents. 

Finally, nonlinear wave can also be used for nonlinear model reduction for applications in advanced, nonlinear model-based control. Successful applications were reported for nonreactive distillation processes with moderately nonideal mixtures [21]. For this class of mixtures the column dynamics is entirely governed by constant pattern waves, as explained above. The approach is based on a wave function which can be used for the approximation of the concentration profiles inside the column. The wave function can be derived from analytical solutions of the corresponding wave equations for some simple limiting cases. It is given by... 

Modeling the concentration profiles of the reacting components. We first discuss simple reaction mechanisms. By this we mean mechanisms for which there are analytical solutions for the sets of differential equations. Later we turn our attention to the modeling of reaction mechanisms of virtually any complexity. In the last section, we look at extensions to the basic modehng methods in an effort to analyze measurements that were recorded under nonideal conditions, such as at varying temperature or pH. 

The matter discussed in sec. 2.3 concerned the phenomenology of adsorption from solution. To make further progress, model assumptions have to be made to arrive at isotherm equations for the individual components. These assumptions are similar to those for gas adsorption secs. 1.4-1.7) and Include issues such as is the adsorption mono- or multlmolecular. localized or mobile is the surface homogeneous or heterogeneous, porous or non-porous is the adsorbate ideal or non-ideal and is the molecular cross-section constant over the entire composition range In addition to all of this the solution can be ideal or nonideal, the molecules may be monomers or oligomers and their interactions simple (as in liquid krypton) or strongly associative (as in water). 

There are simple algebraic solutions for the linear ideal model of chromatography for the two main coimter-current continuous separation processes. Simulated Moving Bed (SMB) and True Moving Bed (TMB) chromatography. Exphcit algebraic expressions are obtained for the concentration profiles of the raffinate and the extract in the columns and for their concentration histories in the two system effluents. The transition of the SMB process toward steady state can be studied in detail with these equations. A constant concentration pattern can be reached very early for both components in colimm III. In contrast, a periodic steady state can be reached only in an asymptotic sense in colunms II and IV and in the effluents. The algebraic solution allows the exact calculation of these limits. This result can be used to estimate a measure of the distance from steady state rmder nonideal conditions. 

Simple Wave Particular boundary conditions for which the solution of the nonideal chromatographic models is mathematically simple. In the case of a breakthrough curve, in frontal analysis or in the injection of a wide rectangular pulse, the concentration of each component varies between two constant values. The solution is said to be a simple wave solution, by reference to the theory of wave propagation which is governed by a similar equation. 

---