Alkane solubilities in aqueous alkanolamine solutions

with CPA EoS

Tianyuan Wang, Elise El Ahmar, Christophe Coquelet

To cite this version:

Tianyuan Wang, Elise El Ahmar, Christophe Coquelet. Alkane solubilities in aqueous alka-
nolamine solutions with CPA EoS. Fluid Phase Equilibria, Elsevier, 2017, 434, pp.93-101.
�10.1016/j.fluid.2016.11.025�. �hal-01498790�

HAL Id: hal-01498790

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01498790
Submitted on 31 Mar 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Alkane solubilities in aqueous alkanolamine solutions with CPA EoS
Tianyuan Wang, Elise El Ahmar and Christophe Coquelet*

Mines Paristech –PSL Research University, Centre of Thermodynamics of Processes CTP, 35 Rue Saint Honoré,
77305 Fontainebleau, France

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Absorption with aqueous alkanolamine solution is often used for acid gas removal processes.
Thermodynamic model is very important to predict phase behaviour for designing and
optimizing acid gas absorption units. To estimate alkanes losses in these processes, the
knowledge of alkanes solubility in aqueous alkanolamine solutions is essential. In the present
work, Cubic-Plus-Association Equation of State (CPA EoS) was applied to represent alkanes
solubility in aqueous alkanolamine. The Average Relative Deviation on alkanes solubility in
aqueous alkanolamine solution is less than 15%. Due to our model, the temperature of alkanes
minimum solubility in pure water and alkanolamine solutions are correctly predicted. Water
content is also well predicted at Vapour Liquid Equilibrium condition.

Keywords: phase equilibria, data treatment, modelling, parameter determination

1
 1. Introduction
Among fossil fuels, natural gas is the cleanest, in terms of CO2 emission, burn efficiency and
amount of air pollutant [1]. Methane is the prevailing element of natural gas. However, there
are a variety of impurities in the natural gas reservoir. Usually, natural gas contains
considerable amounts of acid gas (CO2, H2S). With the presence of water, acid gas can lead to
corrosion in equipments and pipelines. The presence of acid gas can also reduce the heating
value of gas and make more air pollution. Acid gas is needed to be removed until acceptable
standard is achieved: not greater than 4 ppm for H2S and less than 280 ppm for CO2 [2]. For
this purpose, different acid gas removal processes have been developed in recent decades,
such as absorption [3], adsorption [4], low temperature separation processes (CFZ [5] and
Sprex [6] processes) and membrane separation [7]. Chemical absorption with aqueous
alkanolamines solutions is the most established and used technology for efficient removal of
acid gas. As alkanolamines, we can cite monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA),
methyldiethanolamine (MDEA). After absorption step, solvent is regenerated into a second
column by heating. During the operation, a part of alkanes can be absorbed as well. It is
essential to estimate the losses of alkanes in the process design and simulation. For this reason,
it is necessary to develop thermodynamic models in order to predict the solubilities of
different alkanes in alkanolamine solutions.

Due to the presence of associating molecules like alkanolamine and water, it is better to
consider molecular models or an Equation of State (EoS) containing an association term. In
the beginning of 80s, Wertheim [8] has developed a model for association molecules. This
model is used in the Statistical Associating Fluid Theory EoS [9]. In 1996, Kontogeorgis et al.
[10] has proposed to combine Wertheim’s model and Cubic EoS. This model is called Cubic
Plus Association EoS (CPA EoS). This EoS can easily consider the presence of hydrogen
bonding. In this study, we have considered the Peng-Robinson (PR)-CPA EoS. It takes
advantage of PR EoS for non-associating components as well. In 2015, Hajiw et al. [11] have
developed a Group Contribution (GC) version of this model. In previous studies, Avlund et al.
[12,13] have applied CPA EoS to describe the phase equilibria of alkanolamine-water binary
systems, and claimed that the results are satisfactory overall with an ARD less than 30%.
Folas et al. [14] and Oliveira et al. [15] have used CPA EoS to study water-alkane binary
systems. They have considered no temperature dependant Binary Interaction Parameters
(BIPs). They claimed that the model has good performance for both alkane solubilities in
water and water content in alkane. Since they found that the Average Relative Deviation is
smaller than 30 % and 25 % respectively.

The aim of this study is to describe alkanes (methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, i-butane, n-
propane and hexane) solubility in aqueous MDEA, MEA and DEA solutions by using PR-
CPA EoS. In the present work, pure compounds parameters are fitted with CPA EoS from
experimental vapour pressure and liquid density. Then, for the water-alkane and water-
alkanolamine binary systems, their BIPs are adjusted from experimental binary data. The
above experimental data are taken from ThermoData Engine [16]. However, due to the lack of

2
experimental data concerning alkane-alkanolamine binary systems, it is impossible to directly
adjust their BIPs. We have determined the missing parameters from alkane-water-
alkanolamine ternary systems experimental data. Because a large number of Vapour-Liquid-
Equilibrium (VLE), Liquid-Liquid-Equilibrium (LLE) and Vapour-Liquid-Liquid-
Equilibrium (VLLE) experimental data of these ternary systems are available in the open
literature (as examples these two GPA research reports: Mokraoui et al. [17] and Valtz et al.
[18]).

To the best of our knowledge, only the paper of Carroll et al. [19] has allowed us to compare
water content and MDEA vapour compositions. With optimized BIPs, solubilities of pure
alkanes and mixtures of alkanes in aqueous alkanolamine solutions are predicted. These
mixtures [17] are composed by ethane, propane, n-butane, i-butane, n-propane and hexane.

2. The PR-CPA EoS

The CPA EoS has an explicit part to account for hydrogen bonding, making it well suited to
describe water- alkanolamines-alkanes systems, where water and alkanolamines molecules
form hydrogen bonds between them and themselves (self and cross associations). PR-CPA
EoS takes a cubic EoS as the basis and adds a correction for hydrogen bonding [10]. Here, the
cubic part is the PR EoS [20] and the association part is from Wertheim [8] (Eq. 1).

1 RT   ln g r 
P
RT

a(T )

Vm  b Vm (Vm  b)  b(Vm  b) 2 Vm 
1  


 xi  1  X Ai  (1)
 i Ai

The model is detailed in the appendix A. For LLE and VLE, liquid and vapour compositions
were calculated by two phase flash using algorithm of Michelsen et al. [21]. For VLLE, all
three phase compositions were calculated by multi-phases flash method (Michelsen [22]) with
stability analysis (Michelsen [23]).

3
3. Results

3.1. Pure components

Alkanes do not form any hydrogen bond between themselves, the parameters of association
term (εAiBj and βAiBj) are set to zero. Cubic pure component parameters (a0, b, c1) were
calculated from critical pressure, critical temperature and acentric factor by using Eq A 9-12
from Appendix A. The values of pure components critical properties (Tc and Pc) and acentric
factors (ω) are taken from Thermo Data Engine [16] (Table 1).

Table 1. Pure components critical properties and acentric factors from Thermo Data Engine [16].

Compound Tc /K Pc /Mpa ω

Methane 190.56 0.546 0.0011548

Ethane 305.32 4.872 0.099493

propane 369.82 4.248 0.152291

n-butane 425.15 3.794 0.19955

i-butane 407.84 3.639 0.18444

n-pentane 469.7 3.370 0.251506

n-hexane 507.53 3.028 0.30044

The nomenclature of Huang and Radosz [24] is adopted for water and all the alkanolamines.
We consider as Kontogeorgis et al. [25] that 4C association scheme is the most suitable
scheme for water. For alkanolamines, 4C association scheme is used to represent their
association scheme. In previous work, Avlund et al. [12,13] mentioned that 4C association
scheme is a natural choice for MEA. Also, they compared different association schemes for
DEA and concluded that with 4C association scheme, pure component thermodynamic
properties of DEA are correctly predicted. Moreover, as the molecule structure of MDEA is
similar to the one of DEA, they have assumed that 4C association scheme is also suitable for
MDEA. Consequently, the parameters of association term (εAiBj and βAiBj) of MDEA are
assumed as the same as the ones of DEA.

Five parameters (a0, b, c1, εAiBj and βAiBj) are required to represent thermodynamic properties
of water, MDEA, DEA, and MEA. The parameters were regressed by minimizing an
objective function (Eq. 2):
𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑝 𝑃 𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑠𝑎𝑡 −𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝜌 𝜌 𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝑙𝑖𝑞 −𝜌 𝑙𝑖𝑞
𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 ,𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝑖=1 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑖 + 𝑖=1 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑖 (2)
𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 𝜌 𝑙𝑖𝑞

4
Where 𝑛𝑣𝑎𝑝 and 𝑛𝜌 are the number of vapour pressure, and liquid density. 𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 is the vapour
𝑒𝑥𝑝
pressure. 𝜌 𝑙𝑖𝑞 is the liquid density. 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡 and 𝜌𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑙𝑖𝑞 were generated by using DIPPR correlations
from Thermo Data Engine [16]. Pure component parameters are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. PR CPA parameters for compounds for association compounds considered in this work.

a0 b c1 εAiBj βAiBj Tc Range of Tr

Compound scheme ARDa
/bar L2 mol-2 /L mol-1 /bar.L.mol-1 /K
For Psat For ρL Psat ρL
MEA 4C 1.333 5.467 0.763 168.23 0.0142 671.4 0.42-0.92 0.43-0.61 1.8 0.6

DEA 4C 3.065 9.246 1.02 201.76 0.0083 768 0.45-0.88 0.41-0.48 0.3 1.3

MDEA 4C 3.339 11.346 0.695 201.76 0.0083 741.9 0.39-0.9 0.38-0.63 0.9 2

water 4C 0.123 1.445 0.674 170.48 0.0698 647.29 0.43-0.95 0.43-0.95 1 1.6

a
ARD = 1/np× Σ|1 − χicalc/χiexp| × 100%.

3.2. Alkanolamine-water binary systems

Like Avlund et al. [12,13], we consider a constant value of BIP to represent alkanolamine-
water binary systems. For each alkanolamine-water binary system, we have adjusted the
corresponding BIP and a Flash type objective function (Eq. 3) has been chosen.
𝑛
𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 ,𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 −𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 100 × 𝑖=1 𝑥1 𝑐𝑎𝑙 −𝑥1 𝑒𝑥𝑝 + 𝑦1 𝑐𝑎𝑙 −𝑦1 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑖 (3)

Where x1 is the composition of alkanolamine in the liquid phase, y1 is the composition of

alkanolamine in the vapour phase.

Table 3 summarizes the BIPs and the references used in PR-CPA EoS for the VLE data
treatment of alkanolamine-water systems. For MDEA-water and DEA-water binary systems,
as usually in the vapour phase the concentration of alkanolamine is very low (order of
magnitude of the amine mole fraction around 10-6), only compositions of liquid phase are
used to estimate BIPs. For MEA-water binary system, both compositions of liquid and vapour
phases have been taken into account. From Figure 1, it can be seen that PR-CPA EoS with
temperature independent BIPs is able to accurately represent phase behaviour of
alkanolamine-water systems.

Table 3. Average Absolute Deviation (AAD) in liquid and vapor composition between PR-CPA adjusted
data and experimental ones of water with MEA, DEA or MDEA binary system.

T /K No BIP Adjusted BIP referencesb

AADa AADa AADa x1×100 AADa y1×100 kij
x1×100 y1×100
MDEA-water 313-450 12.26 1.26 1.20 0.005 -0.190 [26], [27], [28], [29]
DEA-water 311-473 6.93 - 2.14 - -0.114 [30], [31]
MEA-water 283-373 9.30 1.73 1.74 0.23 -0.142 [26], [32], [33]
a
AAD = 1/NP× Σ| χicalc-χiexp|; b isotherm and isobar VLE data

5
Figure 1. Comparison of experimental data (symbols) and adjusted ones using PR-CPA EoS (solid lines) for
MEA-water binary system; (×)=333 K:Lenard et al. [32], (□)=343 K:Kim et al. [26], (△)=353 K :[26], (○)= 363
K:Tochigi et al. [33], (◇)=373 K [26].3.3. Alkane-water binary systems
As explained by Hajiw [34], we also consider a second order polynomial equation with
temperature (Eq .4) for the BIP to well describe the minimum solubility of alkane in aqueous
solution. Consequently, we have considered a second order polynomial equation for the BIP
(Eq. 4):

𝐵𝐼𝑃 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ∙ 𝑇 + 𝑐 ∙ 𝑇 2 (4)

a, b, c were estimated by fitting alkane solubility data and using a Flash type objective
function (Eq. 5).

𝑛 𝑥 1 𝑐𝑎𝑙 −𝑥 1 𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 ,ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 −𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 100 × 𝑖=1 𝑖 (5)
𝑥 1 𝑒𝑥𝑝

Table 4 summarizes the adjusted BIPs and the references used for the VLE data treatment of
alkane-water binary systems. The ARD on alkane solubility in water is less than 12 %.
Satisfactory results are obtained with our model compared to the ARD (less than 30%)
obtained with Oliveira et al. [15]. We suspect that this higher deviation is due to their choice
of using non temperature dependent BIPs.

6
Table 4. Comparison between alkane solubility data water with the calculated ones.

T /K ARD x1 a b×103 /K-1 c×106 /K-2 References

methane-water 274-423 6 -1.597 8.398 -8.29 [37,38]
ethane-water 259-444 7 -1.517 8.198 -9.236 [39,40]
propane-water 274-422 9 -1.114 6.256 -7.370 [41,42]
a
butane-water 273-423 7 -0.751 4.074 -4.467 [43,44]
a
i-butane-water 278-363 10 0.198 -2.152 5.205 [45]
a
pentane-water 273-477 12 -0.704 3.932 -4.749 [35–37]
a
hexane-water 273-425 12 -1.026 5.438 -6.565 [46,48]
a
LLE data were also considered; a, b and c are parameters in Eq. 4

3.4. Alkane-water-alkanolamine ternary systems

Previously, we have shown that using regressed BIPs for alkanolamine-water and alkane-
water binary systems give satisfactory results. To the knowledge of the authors, there is no
experimental VLE data concerning alkane-alkanolamine binary systems (only one set of data
of methane-MDEA binary system is available in the open literature [35]). Consequently, BIPs
of alkane-alkanolamine have been fitted using experimental alkane solubility in aqueous
alkanolamine solutions. BIPs have the same expression as alkane-water binary systems (Eq.
4). A Flash type objective function is used and given by Equation 6.

𝑛 𝑥 1 𝑐𝑎𝑙 −𝑥 1 𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 = 100 × 𝑖=1 𝑖 (6)
𝑥 1 𝑒𝑥𝑝

Where x1 is alkane solubility in aqueous alkanolamine solutions

7
 Table 5 summarizes the obtained results. The model is generally able to describe different alkane solubilities in different aqueous alkanolamine
solutions with ARD less than 10%. It is important to highlight, for each alkane-alkanolamine-water systems, thanks to a single temperature
depend expression of BIPs, the model gives good accuracy (<10%) in all range of alkanolamine concentration.

Table 5. Comparison between experimental data of alkane solubility in aqueous alkanolamine solutions and the adjusted ones obtained with PR-CPA EoS.

T independent BIP T dependent BIP

kij ARD% Number of
alkanes alkanolamines data type alkanolamine wt % T /K P /MPa a b×10 /K-1
3
c×105 /K-2 ARD% references
point
DEA VLE 5-40 310-394 0.1-20 0.441 6.0 -3.334 21.802 -3.119 4.4 53 [49]
Methane MDEA VLE 35-50 298-423 1-20 0.693 10.5 -0.626 8.506 -1.383 8.4 85 [35,50,51]
MEA VLE 5-40 298-394 0.1-13 0.276 8.4 -6.520 41.059 -6.130 6.5 49 [49,52]
DEA VLE,VLLE 5-40 283-403 0.1-13 0.305 5.1 -0.544 5.269 -0.810 5.1 35 [17,53]
Ethane MDEA VLE 25-50 283-398 0.1-13 0.327 11.2 2.181 -9.183 1.065 6 61 [50]
MEA VLE 5-40 298-398 0.1-12.6 0.194 7.2 -4.193 26.400 -3.935 5.1 40 [52,53]
DEA VLE, VLLE 0-65 298-348 0.1-1.3 0.210 6.6 3.099 -18.490 2.948 5.3 23 [17,54]
Propane MDEA VLE, LLE 25-50 273-423 0.1-19.6 0.351 21.5 0.738 -1.493 0.072 5 74 [19,54]
MEA LLE 0-100 313 1.72 0.113 11 0.113 11 11 [54]
DEA VLLE 31.9-44.9 310-333 0.1-1.3 0.190 8.5 -1.982 12.957 -1.921 5.0 8 [17,55]
n-butane
MDEA VLE, LLE 25-50 298-423 0.1-21 0.288 31 0.868 -2.349 0.161 6.2 80 [17,44,55]
DEA VLLE 35 310-333 0.1-1.3 0.124 4.5 -0.516 4.665 -0.837 0.3 6 [17]
i-butane
MDEA VLLE 25-50 298-343 0.4-1.1 0.253 11.3 3.618 26.182 -4.422 8.6 12 [17]
DEA VLLE 35 298-333 0.5 0.132 4.0 1.926 -11.678 1.897 1.3 6 [17]
Pentane
MDEA VLLE 25-50 298-343 0.5 0.228 7.0 3.545 23.914 -3.789 6.3 12 [17]
DEA VLLE 35 298-353 0.5 0.354 16.6 1.651 -8.393 1.087 7.4 10 [17]
Hexane
MDEA VLLE 25-62 298-353 0.5 0.195 23.8 0.805 -2.476 0.155 17 32 [17,36]

8
For examples, Figure 2a and 2b show propane solubility in 35 wt % aqueous MDEA solution. The ARD is 5.0% for all sets of experimental data
at VLE and LLE conditions. Figure 3 represents propane solubility in aqueous DEA solution in function of concentration, PR-CPA EoS is in
good agreement with experimental data. Nevertheless, our model has higher ARD (17%) on n-hexane solubility in aqueous MDEA solution. In
fact, this system has been treated by using two sets of experimental data (Mokraoui et al. [17] and Alheseinat et al. [36]), the ARD are 8.8% and
32.8% respectively. Since Alheseinat et al. [36] mentioned that the uncertainty of their experimental data is more than 30%, this set of data is
suspicious.

20 4

18
3.5

16
3
14
LLE
2.5
12

10 2
P /MPa

P /MPa
8
1.5

6
1
4
LLE VLE
0.5
2
VLE
0 0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
xpropane xpropane

Figure 2. (b. is the zoom of a.) Comparison between experimental data from Jou et al.[21] for propane solubility in 35 wt % aqueous MDEA solution and adjusted
data using PR-CPA EoS (solid lines). (×)=273 K, (□)=298 K, (△)=313 K (○)=323 K, (*)=348 K, (■)=398 K, (▲)=398 K, (●)=423 K, dashed line: VLLE interface.

9
Figure 3. Propane solubility as function of DEA concentration up to 65 wt % at 313K and 17.24bar,
symbol: experimental data from Jou et al. [54], solid line: data calculated by PR-CPA EoS.

4 Discussion

4.1. Temperature of minimum solubility of methane

Hajiw [34] (2014) and Hajiw et al. [11] (2015) have tested the capacity of PR-CPA EoS to
predict the temperature of minimum of solubility for alkane-water binary systems. In this
paper, the authors have also demonstrated that the prediction of this temperature is strongly
dependant on the use of a temperature dependent BIP and recommended a second order
polynomial expression. Using our model for methane-water binary system and at 5 MPa, we
have predicted a temperature of 407 K. As shown in Figure 4, we have predicted the methane
solubility as function of temperature (273-405 K) for 3 different aqueous MDEA solutions (25,
35 and 50 wt %) at 7.5 MPa (Since the solubility of methane do not have the same order of
magnitude, their values are normalized). We observed that for each aqueous MDEA solution,
it exists a temperature of minimum methane solubility. After, we also predict the temperature
of minimum of solubility of methane in 3 MDEA aqueous solutions (25, 35 and 50 wt %) and
pure water at 3 different pressures 5, 7.5 and 10 MPa, the result is summarized in Table 6. In
fact, the temperature of methane minimum solubility is influenced by two factors: the
concentration of alkanolamine and the pressure.

10
Figure 4. PR-CPA EoS prediction of the ratio of methane solubility and the minimum solubility as
function of temperature at 75 bar. solide line=25 wt % MDEA, dashed line=35 wt % MDEA, dotted
line=50 wt % MDEA.

As shown in Figure 5, the temperature of the minimum solubility decreases as the MDEA
weight percent increases. It could be explained by the fact that the hydrogen bound between
water is destroyed by introducing MDEA molecules. Less energy is needed to absorb the
same quantity of methane in a higher MDEA concentration solution. Seen in Figure 6, the
temperature of methane minimum solubility decreases while the pressure increases. In fact,
higher pressure makes methane more soluble. Consequently, lower temperature is required.
The same approach can be applied to all alkanes.

Table 6. Methane minimum solubility temperature in aqueous MDEA solution and in pure water
predicted by PR-CPA EoS.

P /MPa T /K
5 407 340 317 286
7.5 402 335 312 280
10 395 330 306 277
wt % MDEA 0 25 35 50

11
 Figure 5. PR-CPA EoS prediction of the temperature of minimum solubility of methane as function of
MDEA concentration at different pressure. (×)=5 MPa, (□)=7.5 MPa, (○)=10 MPa.

Figure 6. PR-CPA EoS prediction of the temperature of minimum solubility of methane as function of
pressure in different aqueous MDEA solutions (□)=25 wt % MDEA, (×)=35 wt % MDEA, (○)=50 wt %
MDEA and (△)=pure water.

12
4.2 Propane-MDEA-water alkane rich phase prediction
The ability of the model to predict water content was also evaluated. As seen in Figure 7, at
VLE condition, predicted water contents are in good agreement with the only experimental
data found in the literature and measured by Carroll et al. [19] in 1992. The ARDs are less
than 20%. However, the model fails to predict water content in LLE conditions. After
comparison with experimental data of Carroll et al. [19]. The ARDs are less than 124%. The
biggest deviations are observed at low temperatures. It is not surprising that EoS fails to
predict both VLE and LLE without mixing rules. We suggest as an alternative solution, to
modify the expression of the co-volume b, by introducing a binary interaction parameter lij.

Figure 7. Comparison between experimental data from Caroll et al. [19] for water content in propane rich
phase of propane-MDEA(35 wt %)-water ternary system and predicted data using PR-CPA EoS (solid
lines). (◆)=273K, (■)=298K, (▲)=323K, (×)=348K, (*)=373K, (●)=398K, (+)=423K.

MDEA composition has been also measured by Carroll et al. [19] in propane rich phase, the
composition of MDEA corresponds to few ppm at low temperature. MDEA composition is
poorly predicted by our model. In fact, predicted MDEA composition is 10-100 times lower
than experimental data at LLE conditions. The only agreement between model and
experimental data is at temperature above 373 K and pressure under 5 MPa. Mokraoui et al.
[17] did not manage to measure the same system as Carroll et al. [19]. Meanwhile, for pentane
solubility in aqueous MDEA solutions, Mokraoui et al. [17] showed that the concentration of
MDEA is less than 10 ppm in the liquid alkane rich phase. We conclude that more studies
concerning the measurement of MDEA composition in different alkanes rich phase data are
needed for the model validation.

13
We have also evaluated the model performance to predict the water content of this ternary
system without BIPs for propane-water and propane-MDEA systems, the ARD on water
content is 21% in VLE region. The water content value concerning propane-water-MDEA
ternary system at given T and P should be lower but very close to the one of propane-water
binary system in the same condition of T and P because the molar composition of water is
64.4 % in the aqueous solution. Therefore, we have predicted the water content without BIP
for propane-water binary system, the ARD is 8% compared to the experimental data
published by Kobayashi et al. [41] and Blanco et al. [56]. We conclude that the vapour phase
data published by Carroll et al. [19] are probably suspicious.

4.3. Alkane-alkanolamine-water ternary systems prediction at VLLE

conditions
The experimental VLLE data of ethane-MDEA-water, propane-MDEA-water, and n-butane-
MDEA-water ternary systems were not used for data adjustment, since for these systems we
have already enough VLE or LLE data. Therefore, VLLE data is used for model validation;
they are compared with those predicted with PR-CPA EoS, see Figures 8, 9 and 10. For
ethane-MDEA-water ternary system, the overall ARD for ethane solubility is less than 6% in
MDEA with three concentrations (0% wt%, 25 wt % and 50 wt %). The largest ARDs, 14 %
are observed for ethane solubility in pure water. For propane-MDEA-water ternary system,
the ARD for all concentrations of MDEA are less than 2 %. For n-butane-MDEA-water
ternary system, PR-CPA EoS can accurately predict n-butane solubility in pure water, 25 wt %
MDEA, 35 wt % MDEA and 50 wt % MDEA. The ARDs are less than 8 %.
Moreover, the slope of each curve represents the enthalpy of absorption of solute i (Δhiabs)
given by Equation 7.

𝜕𝑙𝑛 𝑥 𝑖 𝛥ℎ 𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑠
=− (7)
𝜕1/𝑇 𝑃 𝑅

The absorption is endothermic, if the sign is negative, otherwise exothermic. For propane and
n-butane, the absorption is always endothermic because once need energy to destroy the
hydrogen bound between water–water, water-MDEA and MDEA-MDEA once alkanes
molecules are introduced. However, for ethane, it seems that we have a particular behaviour
since there is no tendency of the enthalpy of absorption (exothermic, athermic and
endothermic for 0, 25 and 50 wt % MDEA respectively).

14
 -5.5

-5.7

-5.9

-6.1

-6.3
ln(xethane )

-6.5

-6.7

-6.9

-7.1

-7.3

-7.5
0.0032 0.00325 0.0033 0.00335 0.0034 0.00345 0.0035 0.00355 0.0036
T-1 /K-1

Figure 8. Comparison between experimental data from Mokraoui et al. [17] for solubility of ethane in
aqueous MDEA solution and predicted data using PR-CPA EoS (solid lines). (△)=Pure water, (×)=25 wt %
MDEA, (□)=50 wt % MDEA.

-6

-6.5

-7
ln(xpropane )

-7.5

-8

-8.5

-9
0.0029 0.003 0.0031 0.0032 0.0033 0.0034
T-1 /K-1

Figure 9. Comparison between experimental data from Mokraoui et al. [17] for solubility of propane in
aqueous MDEA solution and predicted data using PR-CPA EoS (solid lines). (△)=Pure water, (×)=25 wt %
MDEA, (□)=50 wt % MDEA.

15
 -7

-7.5

-8
ln (xn-butane )

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10
0.0025 0.0026 0.0027 0.0028 0.0029 0.003 0.0031 0.0032 0.0033 0.0034 0.0035
T-1 /K-1

Figure 10. Comparison between experimental data from Mokraoui et al. [17], Jou et al. [44] for solubility
of butane in aqueous MDEA solution and predicted data using PR-CPA EoS (solid lines). (△) =Pure water
[17], (×)=25 wt % MDEA [17], (○)=35 wt % MDEA [44], (□)=50 wt % MDEA [17].

4.4. Multi-component alkanes solubilities prediction in aqueous amine

solutions
As a final test, we have used our model to predict multi-component alkanes solubilities in
alkanolamine solutions. Few experimental data for alkane mixtures solubility in aqueous
alkanolamine solutions are available. Mokraoui et al. [17] measured the solubility of two
mixtures (MIX1 and MIX2, Table 7) in 35 wt % DEA, 25 wt % and 50 wt % MDEA, within
temperature range from 298 to 333 K and pressure range from 0.6 to 4 MPa. The reported
data concern VLE and VLLE conditions.

Table 7. Alkane mixture composition from Mokraoui et al. [17].

Mole Composition
Alkanes MIX1 MIX2
ethane 0.5 0.02
propane 0.3 0.5
n-butane 0.1 0.23
i-butane 0.02 0.1
n-pentane 0.05 0.1
n-hexane 0.03 0.05

As for non-associative molecules, the PR-CPA EoS is reduced to PR EoS, the BIP between
alkanes one taken from the work of Gao et al. [57].

16
From Table 8 once can notice that the model has good predictability for the majority
compounds, i.e. ethane and propane for MIX1; propane and n-butane for MIX 2. The ARDs
are less than 30% for ethane and propane. Meanwhile, for C4 to C6, ARDs are more
important.

Table 8. PR-CPA EoS prediction of alkane mixture solubility in aqueous alkanolamine solutions.

ARDa %
T /K P /MPa Ethane Propane
50 wt% MDEA 298-333 0.6-4.2 22 13
MIX1 25 wt% MDEA 298-333 0.7-4.0 16 11
35 wt% DEA 298-333 0.6-4.3 29 17
50 wt% MDEA 298-333 0.5-1.3 - 30
MIX2b 25 wt% MDEA 298-333 0.5-1.3 - 19
35 wt% DEA 298-333 0.5-1.4 - 9
a: ARD is average relative deviation determined on solubility of main conponents

b: propane is the main component of MIX 2

5 Conclusion
In this work, the PR-CPA EoS was applied to describe the solubility of alkanes in
aqueous MDEA, DEA and MEA solutions. Pure compounds parameters of associating
compounds were determined by regression from experimental data. The model describes both
pure component liquid density and vapour pressure within ARD lower than 3%. Then, PR-
CPA EoS was applied to model phase equilibria of alkanolamine-water and alkane-water
binary systems. It showed good agreement for these binaries studied in this work.
Experimental data of alkanes in aqueous alkanolamine solutions (solubility) were used to
correlate BIPs of corresponding alkane-alkanolamine binary systems. With optimized
parameters, alkane solubilities in aqueous alkanolamine solutions were successfully described
by the model; the ARDs are under 10%. Furthermore, the temperature of minimum solubility
of methane was well described.
Water content was also accurately predicted in VLE conditions (ARDs are less than 12%) but
not in LLE conditions, PR-CPA EoS must be improved. Solubility of two alkanes mixtures in
aqueous alkanolamine solutions were studied in this work. The model was able to predict
main components solubility (The ARDs are less than 30%).
This study showed that PR-CPA EoS is accurate for predicting alkane solubility in aqueous
alkanolamine solutions. Our future objective is to improve our model by taking into account
the impact of acid gases. The introduction of H2S and CO2 leads to chemical reaction taking
place with alkanolamine and water and different electrolyte species will be formed.

17
6 Nomenclature
List of abbreviations
AAD=average absolute deviation
ARD=average relative deviation
cal=calculated by the model
CPA=cubic-plus-association
DEA=diethanolamine
EoS=equation of state
Exp=experimental
LLE=liquid-liquid equilibria
MEA=monoethanolamine
MDEA=methyldiethanolamine
PR=Peng Robinson
SAFT=statistical associating fluid theory
VLE=vapour-liquid equilibria
VLLE=vapour-liquid-liquid equilibria

Roman symbols
a0=parameter in the energy term (a) (bar L mol-2)
Ai=site A in molecule i
b=covolume parameter (L mol)
Bj=site B in molecule j
c1=parameter in the energy term (a)
g=radial distribution function
BIP=binary interaction parameter
P=pressure
T=temperature
Tr=reduced temperature by critical temperature
Vm=molar volume
xi=liquid mole fraction of component i
XAi=fraction of i molecules, not bonded at site A
yi=vapour mole fraction of component i

Greek letters

Ai B j
=association volume parameter between site A in molecule I and site B in molecule j
∆=association strength (L/mol)
 i j =association energy parameter between site A in molecule I and site B in molecule j (bar L mol-1)
AB

η=reduced density
ρ=density (mol/L)

18
7 References
[1] How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA),
th
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11, accessed 24 October 2016
[2] A. Rojey, B. Durand, C. Jaffret, Le Gaz Naturel - Production, Traitement, Transport,
(1994).
[3] A.L. Kohl, R.B. Nielsen, Chapter 2 - Alkanolamines for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon
Dioxide Removal, in: Gas Purif. Fifth Ed., Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, 1997:
40–186.
[4] J. Davison, P. Freund, A. Smith, Putting carbon back into the ground, IEA Greenh. Gas
RD Programme. 28 (2001).
[5] J. Gale, H. Herzog, J. Braitsch, P.S. Northrop, J.A. Valencia, Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies 9The CFZTM process: A cryogenic method for handling high- CO2 and H2S
gas reserves and facilitating geosequestration of CO2 and acid gases, Energy Procedia. 1
(2009) 171–177. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.025.
[6] F. Lallemand, F. Lecomte, C. Streicher, others, Highly sour gas processing: H2s bulk
removal with the sprex process, in: Int. Pet. Technol. Conf., International Petroleum
Technology Conference, 2005. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/IPTC-10581-
MS (accessed August 29, 2016).
[7] S. Sridhar, B. Smitha, T.M. Aminabhavi, Separation of Carbon Dioxide from Natural Gas
Mixtures through Polymeric Membranes—A Review, Sep. Purif. Rev. 36 (2007) 113–174.
doi:10.1080/15422110601165967.
[8] M.S. Wertheim, Fluids with highly directional attractive forces. I. Statistical
thermodynamics, J. Stat. Phys. 35 (1984) 19–34. doi:10.1007/BF01017362.
[9] W.G. Chapman, K.E. Gubbins, G. Jackson, M. Radosz, SAFT: Equation-of-state solution
model for associating fluids, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 52 (1989) 31–38. doi:10.1016/0378-
3812(89)80308-5.
[10] G.M. Kontogeorgis, E.C. Voutsas, I.V. Yakoumis, D.P. Tassios, An Equation of State
for Associating Fluids, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35 (1996) 4310–4318.
doi:10.1021/ie9600203.
[11] M. Hajiw, A. Chapoy, C. Coquelet, Hydrocarbons – water phase equilibria using the
CPA equation of state with a group contribution method, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 93 (2015)
432–442. doi:10.1002/cjce.22093.
[12] A.S. Avlund, G.M. Kontogeorgis, M.L. Michelsen, Modeling Systems Containing
Alkanolamines with the CPA Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 7441–
7446. doi:10.1021/ie800040g.
[13] A.S. Avlund, D.K. Eriksen, G.M. Kontogeorgis, M.L. Michelsen, Application of
association models to mixtures containing alkanolamines, 20 Years SAFT Equ.
StateRecent Adv. ChallengesSymposium. 306 (2011) 31–37. doi:
10.1016/j.fluid.2011.02.005.
[14] G.K. Folas, G.M. Kontogeorgis, M.L. Michelsen, E.H. Stenby, Application of the
Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA) Equation of State to Complex Mixtures with Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (2006) 1527–1538. doi:10.1021/ie050976q.
[15] M.B. Oliveira, J.A.P. Coutinho, A.J. Queimada, Mutual solubilities of hydrocarbons
and water with the CPA EoS, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 258 (2007) 58–66. doi:
10.1016/j.fluid.2007.05.023.
[16] Frenkel, M.; Chirico, R. D.; Diky, V. V.; Yan, X.; Dong, Q.; Muzny, C., NIST
ThermoData Engine, NIST Standard Reference Database 103, Version 1.0; National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program: Gaithersburg,
MD, 2004.

19
[17] S. Mokraoui, A. Valtz, C. Coquelet, D. Richon, Mutual solubility of hydrocarbons and
amines, GPA Res. Rep. 195 (2007).
[18] A. Valtz, P. Guilbot, D. Richon, Amine BTEX solubility, GPA Res. Rep. 180 (2002).
[19] J.J. Carroll, F.-Y. Jou, A.E. Mather, F.D. Otto, Phase equilibria in the system water-
methyldiethanolamine-propane, AIChE J. 38 (1992) 511–520. doi:10.1002/aic.690380405.
[20] D.-Y. Peng, D.B. Robinson, A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fundam. 15 (1976) 59–64. doi:10.1021/i160057a011.
[21] M.L. Michelsen, The isothermal flash problem. Part II. Phase-split calculation, Fluid
Phase Equilibria. 9 (1982) 21–40. doi:10.1016/0378-3812(82)85002-4.
[22] M.L. Michelsen, Calculation of multiphase equilibrium, Comput. Chem. Eng. 18
(1994) 545–550. doi:10.1016/0098-1354(93) E0017-4.
[23] M.L. Michelsen, The isothermal flash problem. Part I. Stability, Fluid Phase Equilibria.
9 (1982) 1–19. doi:10.1016/0378-3812(82)85001-2
[24] S.H. Huang, M. Radosz, Equation of state for small, large, polydisperse, and
associating molecules, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 29 (1990) 2284–2294.
doi:10.1021/ie00107a014.
[25] G.M. Kontogeorgis, I. V. Yakoumis, H. Meijer, E. Hendriks, T. Moorwood,
Multicomponent phase equilibrium calculations for water–methanol–alkane mixtures,
Fluid Phase Equilibria. 158–160 (1999) 201–209. doi:10.1016/S0378-3812(99)00060-6.
[26] I. Kim, H.F. Svendsen, E. Børresen, Ebulliometric Determination of Vapor−Liquid
Equilibria for Pure Water, Monoethanolamine, N-Methyldiethanolamine, 3-
(Methylamino)-propylamine, and Their Binary and Ternary Solutions, J. Chem. Eng. Data.
53 (2008) 2521–2531. doi:10.1021/je800290k.
[27] S. Xu, S. Qing, Z. Zhen, C. Zhang, J.J. Carroll, Vapor pressure measurements of
aqueous N-methyldiethanolamine solutions, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 67 (1991) 197–201.
doi:10.1016/0378-3812(91)90055-C.
[28] E. Voutsas, A. Vrachnos, K. Magoulas, Measurement and thermodynamic modeling of
the phase equilibrium of aqueous N-methyldiethanolamine solutions, Fluid Phase
Equilibria. 224 (2004) 193–197. doi: 10.1016/j.fluid.2004.05.012.
[29] C. Dell’Era, P. Uusi-Kyyny, E.-L. Rautama, M. Pakkanen, V. Alopaeus,
Thermodynamics of aqueous solutions of methyldiethanolamine and diisopropanolamine,
Fluid Phase Equilibria. 299 (2010) 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.fluid.2010.08.026.
[30] S. Horstmann, P. Mougin, F. Lecomte, K. Fischer, J. Gmehling, Phase Equilibrium
and Excess Enthalpy Data for the System Methanol + 2,2‘-Diethanolamine + Water, J.
Chem. Eng. Data. 47 (2002) 1496–1501. doi:10.1021/je020085e.
[31] Z. Cai, R. Xie, Z. Wu, Binary Isobaric Vapor−Liquid Equilibria of Ethanolamines +
Water, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 41 (1996) 1101–1103. doi:10.1021/je960118o.
[32] J.-L. Lenard, R.W. Rousseau, A.S. Teja, Vapor-Liquid Equilibria for Mixtures of 2-
aminoethanol+ water, AIChE Symp. Ser. 86 (1990) 1–5.
[33] K. Tochigi, K. Akimoto, K. Ochi, F. Liu, Y. Kawase, Isothermal Vapor−Liquid
Equilibria for Water + 2-Aminoethanol + Dimethyl Sulfoxide and Its Constituent Three
Binary Systems, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 44 (1999) 588–590. doi :10.1021/je980068i.
[34] M. Hajiw, Hydrate Mitigation in Sour and Acid Gases, phdthesis, Ecole Nationale
Supérieure des Mines de Paris, 2014. https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-
01139496/document (accessed August 29, 2016).
[35] F.-Y. Jou, A.E. Mather, Solubility of Methane in Methyldiethanolamine, J. Chem. Eng.
Data. 51 (2006) 1429–1430. doi:10.1021/je060118g.
[36] E. Alhseinat, R. Danon, C. Peters, F. Banat, Solubility of Hexane in Aqueous
Solutions of Methyldiethanolamine, J. Chem. Eng. Data. (2015). doi:
10.1021/acs.jced.5b00240.

20
[37] J. Gao, D.-Q. Zheng, T.-M. Guo, Solubilities of Methane, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide,
and a Natural Gas Mixture in Aqueous Sodium Bicarbonate Solutions under High
Pressure and Elevated Temperature, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 42 (1997) 69–73.
doi:10.1021/je960275n.
[38] Y. Wang, B. Han, H. Yan, R. Liu, Thermal Measurements, A Selection of Papers
Presented at the International and III Sino-Japanese Symposium on Thermal
MeasurementsSolubility of CH4 in the mixed solvent t-butyl alcohol and water,
Thermochim. Acta. 253 (1995) 327–334. doi:10.1016/0040-6031(94)02011-C.
[39] S. Mao, Z. Zhang, J. Hu, R. Sun, Z. Duan, An accurate model for calculating C2H6
solubility in pure water and aqueous NaCl solutions, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 238 (2005)
77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.fluid.2005.09.014.
[40] A. Chapoy, C. Coquelet, D. Richon, Measurement of the Water Solubility in the Gas
Phase of the Ethane + Water Binary System near Hydrate Forming Conditions, J. Chem.
Eng. Data. 48 (2003) 957–966. doi:10.1021/je0202230.
[41] R. Kobayashi, D. Katz, Vapor-Liquid Equilibria For Binary Hydrocarbon-Water
Systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. 45 (1953) 440–446. doi:10.1021/ie50518a051.
[42] A. Chapoy, S. Mokraoui, A. Valtz, D. Richon, A.H. Mohammadi, B. Tohidi,
Solubility measurement and modeling for the system propane–water from 277.62 to
368.16 K, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 226 (2004) 213–220. doi: 10.1016/j.fluid.2004.08.040.
[43] J.G. Le Breton, J.J. McKetta Jr, Low-pressure solubility of n-butane in water,
Hydrocarb Proc Petr Ref. 43 (1964) 136–138.
[44] F.-Y. Jou, J.J. Carroll, A.E. Mather, F.D. Otto, Phase equilibria in the system n-
butane-water-methyldiethanolamine, Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Fluid Prop. Phase
Equilibria Chem. Process Des. 116 (1996) 407–413. doi:10.1016/0378-3812(95)02912-5.
[45] S. Mokraoui, C. Coquelet, A. Valtz, P.E. Hegel, D. Richon, New Solubility Data of
Hydrocarbons in Water and Modeling Concerning Vapor−Liquid−Liquid Binary Systems,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (2007) 9257–9262. doi:10.1021/ie070858y.
[46] L.C. Price, Aqueous Solubility of Petroleum as Applied to Its Origin and Primary
Migration, AAPG Bull. 60 (1976) 213–244.
[47] Gillespie, Wilson, Gas Process. Assoc. RR-48. (1982).
[48] C. Marche, C. Ferronato, J. Jose, Solubilities of n-Alkanes (C6 to C8) in Water from
30 °C to 180 °C, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 48 (2003) 967–971. doi:10.1021/je025659u.
[49] J.J. Carroll, F.-Y. Jou, A.E. Mather, F.D. Otto, The solubility of methane in aqueous
solutions of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine, Can. J. Chem. Eng.
76 (1998) 945–951. doi:10.1002/cjce.5450760512.
[50] F.-Y. Jou, J.J. Carroll, A.E. Mather, F.D. Otto, Solubility of Methane and Ethane in
Aqueous Solutions of Methyldiethanolamine, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 43 (1998) 781–784.
doi:10.1021/je980003f.
[51] K.A.G. Schmidt, F.-Y. Jou, A.E. Mather, Solubility of Methane in an Aqueous
Methyldiethanolamine Solution (Mass Fraction 50 %), J. Chem. Eng. Data. 53 (2008)
1725–1727. doi:10.1021/je700734p.
[52] J.D. Lawson, A.W. Garst, Hydrocarbon gas solubility in sweetening solutions:
methane and ethane in aqueous monoethanolamine and diethanolamine, J. Chem. Eng.
Data. 21 (1976) 30–32. doi:10.1021/je60068a011.
[53] F.-Y. Jou, A.E. Mather, Solubility of Ethane in Aqueous Solutions of
Monoethanolamine and Diethanolamine, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 51 (2006) 1141–1143.
doi:10.1021/je060031v.
[54] F.-Y. Jou, H.-J. Ng, J.E. Critchfield, A.E. Mather, Solubility of propane in aqueous
alkanolamine solutions, Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. Prop. Phase Equilibria Prod. Process Des.
194–197 (2002) 825–830. doi:10.1016/S0378-3812(01)00647-1.

21
[55] J. Critchfield, Hydrocarbon/water and hydrocarbon/ aqueous amine, Mutual
Solubilities, (n.d.) TP-29, August 2003, Gas Processors Association, Tulsa, Ok.
[56] S.T. Blanco, I. Velasco, E. Rauzy, S. Otı́n, Water dew points of binary nitrogen+water
and propane+water mixtures. Measurement and correlation, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 161
(1999) 107–117. doi:10.1016/S0378-3812(99)00164-8.
[57] G. Gao, J.-L. Daridon, H. Saint-Guirons, P. Xans, F. Montel, A simple correlation to
evaluate binary interaction parameters of the Peng-Robinson equation of state: binary
light hydrocarbon systems, Fluid Phase Equilibria. 74 (1992) 85–93. doi:10.1016/0378-
3812(92)85054-C.

22
 APPRENDIX A: PR-CPA description

Where Vm is the molar volume, b is the molar co volume parameter, a(T) the temperature
dependent energy parameter of the equation of state, ρ the molar density (ρ=1/ Vm), gr the
radial distribution function, and XAi the fraction of sites A on molecule i (hence the subscript
Ai) that do not form bonds with other hydrogen bonding sights. XAi is dependent on the
association strength ΔAiBj between it and sights belonging to other molecules of the same or
different substance, like for example sight B on molecule j named Bj (hence the superscript
AiBj on Δ). XAi is given as

1
X Ai  Eq (A. 1)
1  xj  XBj  i
A Bj

j Bj

XBj is the fraction of sites B on molecule j that don’t form hydrogen bonds. The association
strength ΔAiBj is dependent on the radial distribution function gr, the association energy εAiBj,
and the association volume βAiBj between sights Ai and Bj. The relation is given by equation:

   Ai B j  
i  g r exp   1bij  Ai B j
A Bj
 Eq (A. 2)
  RT  

The cross-association between two associating molecules is modelled by using the CR1
combining rule (Eq. A 3) and (Eq. A 4) for the cross-association energy and volume.

AB 
i i
Aj B j

 
Ai B j
Eq (A. 3)
2

   Ai Bi 
Ai B j Aj B j
Eq (A. 4)

Therefore, the values of ε and β were found by fitting to pure compound vapour pressure and
liquid density experimental data. The equation used to find the radial distribution function is:

1
gr  Eq (A. 5)
1  1.9

1
  b Eq (A. 6)
4

The values of a(T) and b for the mixture are founded using classical van der Waals mixing
rules:

a(T )   xi x j aij Eq (A. 7)

i j

b   xi bi Eq (A. 8)
i

23
Where bi is the molar co volume parameter of the equation of state for pure substance i. For
associative molecules, it is determined by fitting to pure compound vapour pressure and liquid
density experimental data. For alkanes bi was calculated from critical properties acentric
factor:

RT
bi  0.07780 c Eq (A. 9)
Pc

Where kij is the binary interaction parameter. While ai and aj are the energy parameters of the
equation of state for pure substances i and j respectively. For substance i, ai is defined as:
2
  T  
ai  a0,i 1  c1,i 1   Eq (A. 10)
  T 
  c ,i 

Where a0,i and c1,i are parameters of the equation of state for substance i. For water and
alkanolamines they were fit to vapour pressure and liquid density experimental data. For
alkanes they were calculated from critical properties and the acentric factor:

R 2T 2
ai  0.45724 c Eq (A. 11)
Pc

c1,i  0.37464 1.54226  0.26992 2 Eq (A. 12)

24