Comparison of CP-PC-SAFT and CS-SAFT-VR-Mie in Predicting Fluid Phase Behavior in Systems of Phenolic Compounds, Aromatic Amines, Acetophenone, and Benzaldehyde

This study compares the capabilities of the CriticalPoint-basedRevision of PC-SAFT (CP-PC-SAFT) and the Corresponding States-basedSAFT of Variable Range and Mie Potential (CS-SAFT-VR-Mie) to simultaneouslypredict VLE, LLE and critical data available for 74 binary systemsof phenol, m-cresol, 2-methoxyphenol, 2-phenylethanol,2-ethylphenol, pyridine, aniline, benzylamine, o-toluidine,acetophenone, and benzaldehyde with nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane,ethane, propane, n-alkanes, iso-alkanes,and other hydrocarbons. For both models, the universal k (12) values adjusted to the VLE data of the system propane(1)-phenol(2)were applied. It was found that these models yield comparable and,in most cases, accurate estimations of vapor pressures and the purecompound saturated liquid densities. However, CP-PC-SAFT is superiorin predicting the high-pressure density and sound velocity data. CS-SAFT-VR-Mieis able to predict the VLE data fairly accurately in most of the consideredcases. However, it establishes an unrealistic transitional behaviorfrom Type I to Type II via Type VI, which seriously affects its predictionsof LLE. CP-PC-SAFT exhibited better overall reliability. In particular,in most cases. it is superior in estimating VLE and yields reasonablyaccurate predictions of the upper critical solution temperatures.According to the global analysis performed in this study, these resultscould probably be attributed to the obeying of the pure compound T (c) and P (c). At thesame time, CP-PC-SAFT systematically underestimates the widths ofthe LLE phase splits and, as a result, yields inaccurate predictionsof the alkane-rich phases.

Automated summary

This study compares the capabilities of CP-PC-SAFT and CS-SAFT-VR-Mie models in predicting VLE, LLE, and critical data of 74 binary systems. The results show that both models provide accurate estimations of vapor pressures and pure compound saturated liquid densities. However, CP-PC-SAFT performs better in predicting high-pressure density and sound velocity, while CS-SAFT-VR-Mie exhibits unrealistic transitional behavior and inaccurate predictions of LLE.