Models of gas-liquid solubilities

A recent method for phase equilibria, the AGAPE method, has been used to predict activity coefficients and excess Gibbs energy for binary mixtures with good accuracy. The theory, based on a generalised London potential (GLP), accounts for intermolecular attractive forces. Unlike existing prediction methods, for example UNIFAC, the AGAPE method uses only information derived from accessible experimental data and molecular information for pure components. Presently, the AGAPE method has some limitations, namely that the mixtures must consist of small, non-polar compounds with no hydrogen bonding, at low moderate pressures and at conditions below the critical conditions of the components. Distinction between vapour-liquid equilibria and gas-liquid solubility is rather arbitrary and it seems reasonable to extend these ideas to solubility. The AGAPE model uses a molecular lattice-based mixing rule. By judicious use of computer programs a methodology was created to examine a body of experimental gas-liquid solubility data for gases such as carbon dioxide, propane, n-butane or sulphur hexafluoride which all have critical temperatures a little above 298 K dissolved in benzene, cyclo-hexane and methanol. Within this methodology the value of the GLP as an ab initio combining rule for such solutes in very dilute solutions in a variety of liquids has been tested. Using the GLP as a mixing rule involves the computation of rotationally averaged interactions between the constituent atoms, and new calculations have had to be made to discover the magnitude of the unlike pair interactions. These numbers have been seen as significant in their own right in the context of the behaviour of infinitely-dilute solutions. A method for extending this treatment to "permanent" gases has also been developed. The findings from the GLP method and from the more general AGAPE approach have been examined in the context of other models for gas-liquid solubility, both "classical" and contemporary, in particular those derived from equations-of-state methods and from reference solvent methods.

Studies of the effects of molecular encounters on N.M.R. spin-lattice relaxation times

This thesis is concerned with investigations of the effects of molecular encounters on nuclear magnetic resonance spin-lattice relaxation times, with particular reference to mesitylene in mixtures with cyclohexane and TMS. The purpose of the work was to establish the best theoretical description of T1 and assess whether a recently identified mechanism (buffeting), that influences n.m.r. chemical shifts, governs Tl also. A set of experimental conditions are presented that allow reliable measurements of Tl and the N. O. E. for 1H and 13C using both C. W. and F.T. n.m.r. spectroscopy. Literature data for benzene, cyclohexane and chlorobenzene diluted by CC14 and CS2 are used to show that the Hill theory affords the best estimation of their correlation times but appears to be mass dependent. Evaluation of the T1 of the mesitylene protons indicates that a combined Hill-Bloembergen-Purcell-Pound model gives an accurate estimation of T1; subsequently this was shown to be due to cancellation of errors in the calculated intra and intemolecular components. Three experimental methods for the separation of the intra and intermolecular relaxation times are described. The relaxation times of the 13C proton satellite of neat bezene, 1,4 dioxane and mesitylene were measured. Theoretical analyses of the data allow the calculation of Tl intra. Studies of intermolecular NOE's were found to afford a general method of separating observed T1's into their intra and intermolecular components. The aryl 1H and corresponding 13C T1 values and the NOE for the ring carbon of mesitylene in CC14 and C6H12-TMS have been used in combination to determine T1intra and T1inter. The Hill and B.P.P. models are shown to predict similarly inaccurate values for T1linter. A buffeting contribution to T1inter is proposed which when applied to the BPP model and to the Gutowsky-Woessner expression for T1inter gives an inaccuracy of 12% and 6% respectively with respect to theexperimentally based T1inter.