4.5 Article

Measurement and correlation solubility of cefixime trihydrate and oxymetholone in supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2)

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 130-137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2012.09.006

关键词

Cefixime trihydrate; Oxymetholone; Drug; Solubility; Supercritical carbon dioxide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The equilibrium solubilities of cefixime trihydrate and oxymetholone in supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) were measured using a static method. Cefixime trihydrate is a cephalosporin antibiotic drug and Oxymetholone is a 17alpha-alkylated anabolic-androgenic steroid drug. The experimental measurements for cefixime trihydrate were performed at temperatures of 308, 318 and 328 K as well as pressure range from 183 to 335 bar. The solubility of oxymetholone was determined at 308, 318 and 328 K and pressure range from 121 to 305 bar. The experimental solubility data (mole fraction) for cefixime trihydrate and oxymetholone was greater than 1.6 x 10(-7) and 1.6 x 10(-5) and less than 3.02 x 10(-7) and 1.49 x 10(-4), respectively. The solubilities for two drugs in CO2 were correlated by using four semi-empirical models such as Bartle, Kumar and Johnstone (K-J), Mendez-Santiago and Teja (M-T) and Chrastil models. The results obtained from the semi-empirical models show that there is good agreement between the experimental data and the results of semi-empirical models. By using the correlation results, the heat of drug-CO2 solvation and heat of drug vaporization for cefixime-CO2 and oxymetholone-CO2 systems may be approximately estimated. Also, the Peng-Robinson (PR) cubic equation of state (CEOS) along with the van der Waals combining rule was applied to correlate the drugs solubilities in supercritical CO2. The average absolute deviation between the experimental data and the results of PR equation for cefixime trihydrate and oxymetholone was 11.92% and 11.74%, respectively. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据