ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Linking Thermal Conductivity to Equations of State Using the Residual Entropy Scaling Theory
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Thermodynamics, Transport, and Fluid Mechanics

Linking Thermal Conductivity to Equations of State Using the Residual Entropy Scaling Theory
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Zhuo Li
    Zhuo Li
    Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Key Laboratory for CO2 Utilization and Reduction Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,People’s Republic of China
    More by Zhuo Li
  • Yuanyuan Duan*
    Yuanyuan Duan
    Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Key Laboratory for CO2 Utilization and Reduction Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,People’s Republic of China
    Southwest United Graduate School, Kunming 650092, People’s Republic of China
    *Email: [email protected]
  • Xiaoxian Yang*
    Xiaoxian Yang
    Applied Thermodynamics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz 09107, Germany
    *Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (3)

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Cite this: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2024, 63, 42, 18160–18175
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c02946
Published October 15, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In recent years, the application of the residual entropy scaling (RES) method for modeling transport properties has become increasingly prominent. Based on Yang et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 13052) in modeling the thermal conductivity of refrigerants, we present here an RES model that extends Yang et al.’s approach to a wider range of pure fluids and their mixtures. All fluids available in the REFPROP 10.0 software, i.e., those with reference equations of state (EoS), were studied. A total of 71,554 experimental data of 125 pure fluids and 16,702 experimental data of 164 mixtures were collected from approximately 647 references, mainly based on the NIST ThermoData Engine (TDE) database 10.1. As a result, over 68.2% (corresponding to the standard deviation of a normal distribution) of the well-screened experimental data agree with the developed RES model within 3.1% and 4.6% for pure fluids and mixtures, respectively. Comparative analysis against the various models implemented in the REFPROP 10.0 (one of the state-of-the-art software packages for thermophysical property calculations) reveals that our RES model demonstrates analogous statistical agreement with experimental data yet with much fewer parameters. Regarding the average absolute value of the relative deviation (AARD) from experimental values to model predictions, the developed RES model shows a smaller or equal AARD for 74 pure fluids out of 125 and 76 mixtures out of 164. Besides, a detailed examination of the impact of the critical enhancement term on mixture calculations was conducted. To use our model easily, a software package written in Python is provided in the Supporting Information.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Thermal conductivity, an essential transport property, represents the spontaneous energy transfer process resulting from temperature differences. Experimental and modeling studies on the thermal conductivity of fluids are of great scientific importance. In contrast to extensively studied thermophysical properties such as density, experimental data on the thermal conductivity of fluids are relatively sparse and limited to certain temperature and pressure ranges. (1−3) This limitation poses a challenge to constructing empirical multiparameter models, which rely heavily on extensive experimental data, especially as the scope of investigation expands to include a growing number of pure fluids and fluid mixtures. Consequently, the pursuit of semiempirical models, which require fewer parameters and less experimental data for parameter-fitting, is becoming an important focus in thermal conductivity modeling.
Current semiempirical thermal conductivity models include those depending on the free volume theory, (4) the hard-sphere theory, (5) the friction theory, (6,7) the extended corresponding states (ECS), (8,9) and the residual entropy scaling (RES). (10) Among these models, the RES one is attracting more and more attention. According to the isomorph theory, (11,12) the dimensionless transport properties of fluids, especially viscosity and thermal conductivity, can be expressed as a univariate function of residual entropy within a group of similar fluids. As a result, the RES model requires a significantly smaller number of experimental data points for parameter fitting than most other models. Furthermore, owing to the analogous nature of the relation between dimensionless transport properties and dimensionless residual entropy of different fluids, ideally, no additional fitting parameters are required to predict mixtures. Researchers such as Bell et al., (13−16) Yang et al., (17−22) Liu et al., (23−26) Kang et al., (27−29) Hopp et al., (30−32) and Lötgering-Lin et al. (33−35) have effectively utilized this approach to model both the viscosity and thermal conductivity of pure fluids, yielding promising results.
In this paper, we focus on developing RES methods for thermal conductivity. In recent years, numerous researchers have made significant progress. Hopp and Gross (30) developed a RES model for the thermal conductivity of water and 147 organic substances by using the equation of state (EOS) of the perturbed-chain polar statistical associating fluid theory (PCP-SAFT) (36,37) to determine the residual entropy. The RES model showed an average relative deviation of 4.2% from the experimental data. They also investigated a universal modeling approach integrating RES with the group contribution method. (31) Dehlouz et al. (38) introduced a new dimensionless mathematical form for the relation of thermal conductivity and residual entropy similar to that initially proposed by Rosenfeld. (39) They used tc-PR EOS (40) and I-PC-SAFT EOS (41) to calculate the residual entropy and developed a RES model for 119 pure fluids with an average deviation of about 3.4%. Liu et al. (26) created a RES model with critical enhancement correction for CO2 using the crossover multiparameter EOS. (42) Regarding mixtures, the research focus was primarily on refrigerants and their mixtures. Fouad (43) and Kang et al. (28) used the PC-SAFT EOS, (44) while Liu et al. (24) used the cubic-plus-association (CPA) EOS (45) to calculate the residual entropy. In addition, Rokni et al. (46,47) developed RES models based on Hopp and Gross’s research (30) for typical fluids in combustion processes, including hydrocarbon mixtures, to predict the thermal conductivity of fluids under extreme conditions. The studies above on mixtures are all tailored to a single class of fluids; therefore, one of the main objectives of this study is to extend the model to cover a broader range of fluids.
The RES model developed by Yang et al. (48,49) is an essential foundation of this work. Yang et al. (48) utilized REFPROP 10.0 (50) for the residual entropy calculation, formulating an RES model for the thermal conductivity of refrigerants and their mixtures and integrating the critical enhancement crossover model developed by Olchowy and Sengers. (51) Satisfactory agreements with experimental data were achieved for the mixtures without any additional adjustable binary interaction parameters (BIP). Later, for viscosity, Yang et al. (49) classified different fluids into different groups and developed a RES model for 124 fluids ranging from light gases (e.g., helium) to dense fluids (e.g., hexadecane). This work aims to use the same fluid classification method of viscosity (49) to extend the thermal conductivity model developed by Yang et al. (48) from 39 refrigerants to 125 pure fluids. This study will also employ reference EOS to calculate residual entropy, fully capitalizing on the benefits of REFPROP 10.0 in thermodynamic property computations. All fluids implemented in the REFPROP 10.0, namely those with reference EOS, were studied. A total of 71,554 experimental data points for 125 pure fluids and 16,702 experimental data points for 164 mixtures were compiled from approximately 647 references, mainly based on the NIST ThermoData Engine (TDE) database 10.1. (52) Given the significantly expanded range of fluid types considered, the analysis focused mainly on the results of mixtures from a fluid-group perspective. Furthermore, a detailed examination of the impact of the critical enhancement term on the mixtures was conducted.

2. Theory

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Fluid thermal conductivity λ is calculated with the sum of the dilute gas term λρ→0(T), the residual term λres(sr), and the critical enhancement term ΔλC(T,ρ), expressed as follows:
λ=λρ0(T)+λres(sr)+Δλc(T,ρ)
(1)
The dilute gas thermal conductivity λρ→0(T) is a function of temperature T. For pure fluids, a polynomial expression is employed:
λρ0/(W·m1·K1)=i=04ai(T/K)i
(2)
The parameters ai were determined by fitting them to calculations from REFPROP 10.0 (50) for each pure fluid. These values are listed in Table S1 in the Supporting Information (SI) and have been implemented in the OilMixProp 1.0 software package. (53) We could potentially use REFPROP 10.0 to calculate λρ→0. However, REFPROP 10.0 uses a variety of different methods to calculate λρ→0, which are hard to replicate in our coding. Besides, REFPROP 10.0 fails to calculate dilute gas thermal conductivity of many mixtures especially those involving alcohols. Therefore, the proposed eq 2 could be used in combination with a proper mixing rule for calculating the thermal conductivity of the dilute gas thermal conductivity (see the following).
As described by Bell (13) and Yang et al., (48) the residual term of thermal conductivity λres(sr) can be determined using the formula:
λres(sr)=λres+kBρN2/3kBT/m(s+)2/3
(3)
where
s+=sr/R
(4)
Here, ρN in units of m–3 represents the number density, m in units of kg is the mass of one molecule, sr in units of J·mol–1·K–1 denotes the molar residual entropy, which is the difference between the actual fluid entropy and the ideal gas entropy at the same temperature and density, and R = 8.31446261815324 J·mol–1·K–1 is the molar gas constant. In this study, the number density ρN and molar residual entropy sr were computed using the reference EOS implemented in REFPROP 10.0, with the interface of Python CoolProp package version 6.4.1. (54) The reference EOS and thermal conductivity models used in REFPROP 10.0 are listed in Table S2 of the SI. The plus-scaled dimensionless residual thermal conductivity is related to the plus-scaled dimensionless residual entropy s+ using the following polynomial equations
λres+=n1·(s+)+n2·(s+)1.5+n3·(s+)2+n4·(S+)2.5
(5)
or
λres+=ng1·(s+/ξ)+ng2·(s+/ξ)1.5+ng3·(s+/ξ)2+ng4·(S+/ξ)2.5
(6)
Equation 5 is tailored for a pure fluid with fluid-specific fitted parameter nk (k = 1, 2, 3, 4), while eq 6 is designed for a group of pure fluids with group-specific fitted parameters ngk (k = 1, 2, 3, 4) and a fluid-specific scaling factor ξ for each individual fluid.
The critical enhancement of thermal conductivity is determined using a crossover model introduced by Olchowy and Sengers (51) as
Δλc(T,ρ)=ρcpRDKBT6πηφ(Ω¯Ω¯)
(7)
Ω¯=2π[(cpcV)cparctan(qDφ)+cVcpqDφ]
(8)
Ω¯=2π[1exp(1(qDφ)1+(qDφρcrit/ρ)2/3)]
(9)
φ=φ0(pcritρΓρcrit2)ν/γ[ρ(T,p)p|T(TrefT)ρ(Tref,p)p|T]ν/γ
(10)
Here, η represents the viscosity, cp and cV denote the isobaric and isochoric specific heat capacities, respectively, and ρcrit and pcrit stand for the molar density and pressure at the critical point, respectively. These parameters are calculated using the default models in REFPROP 10.0. The values of RD = 1.02, ν = 0.63, and γ = 1.239 are universal constants, while Γ, φ0, Tref, and qD are fluid-specific parameters acquired from REFPROP 10.0 and detailed in Table S3 in the SI.
A predictive mixing rule is adopted to extend the RES model to mixtures. Similar to the previous work, (48) the dilute gas thermal conductivity for mixtures λρ→0,mix is calculated with REFPROP 10.0 via the Python package CoolProp 6.4.1. (54,55) However, REFPROP 10.0 cannot calculate the dilute gas thermal conductivity λρ→0,mix of some mixture especially those involving alcohols and water. For these mixtures, a mixing rule similar to the Wilke approximation (56) was adopted:
λρ0,mix=ixiλρ0,ijxjφij
(11)
with
φij=(1kij,λ)(1+(λρ0,i/λρ0,j)1/2(mj/mi)1/4)2(8(1+mi/mj))1/2
(12)
where xi is the mole fraction of component i and mi is the mass of one molecule of component i. The binary interaction coefficients for dilute gases kij,λ are all set to 0, which could be fitted if sufficient accurate dilute gas data for a mixture are available. Different from our previous work, (48) a new mass fraction weighted mixing rule was used to as the effective mass of one particle of the mixture (to replace m in eq 3 for mixture calculation):
mmix=(iyimi)2=ijyiyjmimj
(13)
where yi is the mass fraction of component i. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.2. Subsequently, in contrast to our previous work, (48) the mole fraction weighted average coefficient nk,mix is employed to substitute the parameters nk in eq 6, i.e.,
nk,mix=ixink,i(k=1,2,3,4)
(14)
where nk,i (k = 1,2,3,4) are fluid-specific fitted parameters nk of component i. It is essential to mention that nk (k = 1, 2, 3, 4) parameters of a pure fluid are replaced by ng1/ξ, ng21.5, ng32, and ng42.5, respectively, only if the pure fluid does not have fluid-specific fitted parameters.
For the critical enhancement term of the thermal conductivity of fluid mixtures, we implemented the identical mixing rule as the ECS model devised by Chichester and Huber, (57) wherein, for mixtures, the parameter Γ, φ0, Tref, and qD in eqs 710 are replaced with the mole-fraction-weighted average of each individual component
Zmix=ixiZi
(15)
where xi is the mole fraction of component i and Z is one of the parameters Γ, φ0, Tref, and qD. The critical parameters (Tcrit, ρcrit, and pcrit) of the mixtures were also acquired from REFPROP 10.0 as well.

3. Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Data Collection and Selection

A total of 71,554 experimental thermal conductivity values (λ, T, p) for 125 pure fluids and 16,702 values (λ, T, p, x) for 164 mixtures (including binary and multicomponent) from approximately 647 references were collected. Detailed citation information is provided in the Supporting Information─Detailed Plots and References (SI-DPR). The literature is primarily sourced from the NIST TDE 10.1, (52) supplemented by recently published experimental data we gathered. All data were carefully examined to address issues such as units, magnitudes, or transcription errors. Subsequently, the same methods (see footnote in Table 1) as used in our previous work (48,49) were adopted to filter out approximately 3.9% pure fluid data and 5.7% of mixture data. Table 1 presents the number of experimental data collected, the number of sources, and the number and proportion of data filtered out by each filter. Figure 1 shows experimental data of two example fluids (ammonia (58−64) and R22 (65−81)) processed with these three filters. Data filtered by filter 1 are all concentrated at zero because their s+ and λres+ cannot be correctly calculated. To a certain extent, these filters also serve for data evaluation, e.g., data filtered out by filter 3 are usually of low quality as they are obviously not consistent with other data. For detailed information on Table 1 for each fluid, please refer to Tables S4 and S5 in the Supporting Information (SI). The experimental data’s temperature, pressure, and composition ranges are also summarized in these two tables.
Table 1. Statistical Experimental Data Summary of Pure Fluids and Their Mixturesa
  SDNtotNuseNlimNphaseNdevNREFPROP,fail
pure fluidstotal5677155468765154446877772
N/Ntot  96.10%2.16%0.65%1.09%0.10%
mixturestotal12416702157586851561031976
N/Ntot  94.35%4.10%0.93%0.62%11.83%
a

SD: number of data sources; Ntot: total number of experimental data; Nuse: number of adopted data for parameter-fitting and comparison analysis; Nlim: number of data filtered by Filter 1, which removed those exceeding limits of the reference EoS in REFPROP 10.0; Nphase: number of data filtered by Filter 2, which removed those reported in conflicting phases; Ndev: number of data filtered by Filter 3, which removed those deviating from the RES model by more than 30%. NREFPROP,fail: number of data whose thermal conductivity cannot be calculated with the recommended models in REFPROP 10.0 using the given temperature and pressure while these data will still be used for the evaluation of the RES model. Please note: some literature have both data of pure fluid and mixtures; therefore, the total number of literature source was 647.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Characteristic λres+ vs s+ curves of (a) ammonia (58−63) and (b) R22. (64−80) The definitions of Filter 1, 2, and 3 can be found in the footnote of Table 1.

All experimental data, except those removed by Filter 1, are displayed in characteristic λres+ vs s+ curves as provided in the SI-DPR. For each pure fluid, the experimental (s+, λres+) points collapse into a characteristic single line with some noise due to the poor quality of some data. A few fluids (such as He and CO) only have experimental data with s+ values close to zero, so the range of residual entropy corresponding to characteristic lines is limited.

3.2. Correlation for Pure Fluids

In this section, the RES model for 125 pure fluids, whose reference EoS and experimental thermal conductivity data are both available, was established. These pure fluids were divided into 8 groups, similar to our previous work. (49) The number and detailed description of each group are presented in Table 2. The classification of groups meets the following objectives: with as few groups as possible, the group-specific parameter ngk fitted to each group and the fluid-specific scaling factor ξ can produce the best statistical consistency. For pure fluids with sufficient quantity and good quality experimental data, the fluid-specific parameter nk could also be fitted. The results are listed in Tables 3 and 4. In Table 3, for the additional 26 (= 151–125) pure fluids implemented in REFPROP 10.0 (151 pure fluids in total) without available data, the group number was determined by the following steps. (1) Carrying out calculations using REFPROP 10.0 in both liquid and gas phases and using these data as reference data; (2) fitting ξ using each group’s group-specific fitted parameters with these reference data; (3) assigning the group number of this fluid where its ξ is most close to 1.
Table 2. Fluid Groups and Their Brief Descriptions
group numbergroup abbreviationdetailed description
1LGlight gases with quantum effects at low temperatures, mainly hydrogen and its spin isomers and helium
2Ggaseous fluids, e.g., the noble gases
3LHCa majority of light hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons (refrigerants)
4Bfluids with benzene rings and similar fluids
5MHCmedium hydrocarbons and similar fluids
6HHCheavy hydrocarbons and dense fluids
7LAfluids with light intermolecular association among molecules like methanol
8SAfluids with strong intermolecular association among molecules, such as water
Table 3. Fluid Information and the Fluid-Specific Fitted Parameters
REFPROP fluid namegroup numberξZan1n2n3n4
13BUTADIENE20.97110.0000005.379592–3.5156311.143689
1BUTENE50.891610.0000004.218309–2.6077450.973758
1BUTYNE410    
1PENTENE40.96430    
22DIMETHYLBUTANE30.983610.0000002.787455–0.3479960.254597
23DIMETHYLBUTANE30.978210.0000003.418932–0.7541660.319323
3METHYLPENTANE50.910910.0000005.003443–2.2391680.664843
ACETONE41.0590    
ACETYLENE31.194510.0000001.750292–0.0989560.143796
AMMONIA70.980410.3579012.5088240.437440–0.007305
ARGON20.992912.212697–4.3354644.685634–0.731662
BENZENE40.986416.114857–11.8050679.165699–1.624275
BUTANE30.987319.914508–15.8448749.840589–1.467766
C1150.795615.167730–5.9071574.958787–0.634295
C1250.80450    
C1650.7121112.868089–9.3400095.387528–0.571729
C1CC631.0211112.813721–19.13895710.658325–1.477798
C2260.74110.00000010.736853–2.0412420.296740
C2BUTENE50.930210.8882443.084085–2.4250220.976326
C3CC640.9774113.331441–19.89438411.138446–1.554099
C4F10310    
C5F1250.86890    
C6F1450.86860    
CF3I310    
CHLORINE30.915610.000000–1.8135944.704503–1.005004
CHLOROBENZENE41.017710.0000000.8134861.321055–0.125706
CO210    
CO231.00211.706852–2.2250832.920715–0.376879
COS310    
CYCLOBUTENE310    
CYCLOHEX31.00810.0000002.971082–0.4816030.256643
CYCLOPEN30.98640    
CYCLOPRO31.23514.574498–12.11447210.732103–2.418843
D210.94760    
D2O81.182315.261652–6.3843645.908181–1.256585
D460.810510.000000–4.1215216.562392–0.964812
D560.727110.000000–5.1701027.532869–1.060288
D6510    
DEA70.98780    
DECANE50.811314.264299–3.1879233.467454–0.428095
DEE30.987915.071657–14.35768411.583587–2.101609
DMC30.987410.000000–1.0972912.780174–0.374842
DME31.045710.759606–0.8912322.426799–0.393419
EBENZENE40.99615.914624–8.9235436.023321–0.807386
EGLYCOL71.249210.000000–0.0712572.106998–0.414900
ETHANE31.009412.264652–2.9732462.834533–0.168146
ETHANOL71.623810.2563497.523893–4.5541790.861844
ETHYLENE30.98210.889433–0.2849622.094853–0.445207
ETHYLENEOXIDE31.201810.0000000.0981281.778352–0.332378
FLUORINE20.942910.000000–0.1140842.560271–0.433969
H2S71.44510.4325012.740587–1.8196810.938402
HCL70.81740    
HELIUM11.29660    
HEPTANE50.863611.639500–4.1095004.754431–0.712181
HEXANE50.8867112.117771–17.46254310.233398–1.465975
HYDROGEN11.092512.263272–7.35675110.699531–3.575533
IBUTENE31.004214.864538–6.4527864.039782–0.328573
IHEXANE50.879710.0000000.8136821.580508–0.152544
IOCTANE50.876918.197005–15.0498079.373205–1.270155
IPENTANE30.95650    
ISOBUTAN31.034417.423475–12.6237518.360390–1.271135
KRYPTON20.980314.126446–6.7765685.542582–0.773972
MD2M610    
MD3M610    
MD4M610    
MDM60.890918.9162672.640074–2.4212930.851311
MEA71.24440    
METHANE20.989712.149868–3.1717913.076996–0.191412
METHANOL71.689513.2861993.920777–3.5330190.823359
MILPRF23699610    
MLINOLEA60.812110.0000005.0387231.660785–0.324476
MLINOLEN610    
MM60.976210.000000–2.9987294.897334–0.700838
MOLEATE60.793210.0000007.4811700.592821–0.199701
MPALMITA610    
MSTEARAT60.74280    
MXYLENE40.98190    
N2O21.061812.513468–5.1010755.298646–1.002263
NEON210    
NEOPENTN310    
NF3310    
NITROGEN20.962812.343833–4.1091314.450635–0.669527
NONANE50.829511.426501–10.3191228.964770–1.374319
NOVEC649410    
OCTANE50.85310.0000003.1920250.0473180.121680
ORTHOHYD110    
OXYGEN20.997313.578576–7.6864987.651484–1.602941
OXYLENE41.0148113.315169–19.18339910.385784–1.404669
PARAHYD110    
PENTANE30.9701117.306659–19.4357819.257508–1.127877
POE5610    
POE7610    
POE9610    
PROPADIENE310    
PROPANE30.996418.726474–13.7875698.781108–1.303329
PROPYLEN40.922712.978741–3.7198023.952515–0.647533
PROPYLENEOXIDE31.06950    
PROPYNE31.07580    
PXYLENE40.9924110.975030–14.3860007.788535–0.960621
R1130.945512.448812–3.0773003.779976–0.574054
R1123310    
R11330.97610.408042–1.1816943.113587–0.513467
R11430.98830    
R11530.970710.832945–0.5496471.989828–0.178955
R11630.82630    
R1230.963413.952520–5.7362675.068745–0.778955
R1216310    
R1224YDZ31.046810.0000005.697113–3.6810561.095443
R12331.0185111.296696–16.7045369.929254–1.487969
R1233ZDE31.01511.381582–2.8892273.573098–0.518453
R1234YF31.044610.0000000.5617911.133353–0.022522
R1234ZEE31.044510.000000–0.1956601.970080–0.248027
R1234ZEZ310    
R12431.036411.936501–1.9187132.181608–0.162050
R1243ZF310    
R12531.013812.118214–2.5483522.867573–0.336718
R1330.974314.401745–6.5230895.339968–0.796013
R1336MZZZ31.071810.0000002.110048–0.0968330.183517
R134A31.043411.388264–0.7609521.664978–0.125953
R1430.985610.0000001.856857–0.0911910.328629
R141B31.022415.244290–12.96691810.001388–1.724927
R142B31.018511.585603–1.2889171.985725–0.151916
R143A31.027710.0000000.8088671.155897–0.078609
R15031.050110.0000003.214526–0.3369630.125032
R152A31.049810.986161–0.1631021.481922–0.139125
R16131.045410.000000–1.3643833.073718–0.504590
R2131.016310.0000000.9051751.252424–0.118433
R21830.94314.546313–5.6287704.395302–0.546137
R2231.038814.091164–5.2809354.457871–0.683280
R227EA31.051114.622243–14.33493812.669269–2.640429
R2331.04614.763672–5.3773494.149939–0.596530
R236EA310    
R236FA31.02212.665792–7.2079126.766258–1.198062
R245CA30.8830    
R245FA31.053310.259408–2.4537433.588802–0.553704
R3230.967110.8330100.4960071.424641–0.174255
R365MFC31.00940    
R40310    
R4130.857510.0000005.494781–1.1031090.051828
RC31830.922310.0000006.665295–3.4249060.930574
RE143A310    
RE245CB231.023111.713390–1.1886781.611470–0.019372
RE245FA231.75410    
RE347MCC30.95430    
SF620.85410.0000005.719873–2.0191520.506107
SO220.883710.0000001.7076981.647666–0.360041
T2BUTENE310    
TOLUENE41.007919.949329–15.0283319.102394–1.327497
VINYLCHLORIDE310    
WATER81.18210.000000–0.4823774.465204–1.296961
XENON20.992511.370170–1.4324501.9974020.005468
a

The quantity and quality of the experimental data are good (Z = 1) or not good (Z = 0) enough to fit fluid-specific n1, n2, n3, and n4 parameters.

Table 4. Group-Specific Fitted Parameters of Each Group
group numberng1ng2ng3ng4
12.391631–8.147312.52226–4.38311
22.173335–4.87675.754321–1.18193
33.629822–5.329444.534105–0.64328
410.62084–16.06879.495404–1.35573
50–0.158251.789146–0.20526
600.8958352.305079–0.32201
79.110479–7.561324.512561–0.63366
802.1241873.034116–1.08806
Note that, for the 39 pure refrigerants studied in our previous work, (48) apart from n-hexane in group 5 and ammonia in group 7, the remaining 37 fluids are all in group 3. Group 3 is the largest group containing 77 pure fluids mainly light hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons. With the new classification, a few additional experimental data and more comprehensive parameter fitting strategy, this study refitted the parameters of the 39 fluids, achieving a good consistency. Experimental data of each group collapse into the λres+ vs s+/ξ curves are shown in Figure 3.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the first group-specific fitted parameter ng1 is zero for groups 5, 6, and 8, and the first fluid-specific fitted parameter n1 is also zero for many pure fluids. The first fitted parameters (n1 and ng1) being zero indicates the potential of constructing the RES model with simpler equations, i.e., one term less than eqs 5 and 6. One strategy is to optimize the functional form (e.g., exponents of s+) of eqs 5 and 6, which are, however, outside the scope of this study and will be explored in the future.
In our previous work, Yang et al. (49) found a relation between the fluid-specific scaling factor ξμ of the viscosity’s RES model and the scrit+ (plus-scaled dimensionless residual entropy at the critical point). Subsequently, Jager et al. (81) studied ξμ of long-chain alkane and applied the results to a new RES model. (82) Inspired by this work on viscosity’s ξμ, the scaling factor of the thermal conductivity was also analyzed in this work. Figure 2 shows how the scaling factor ξ of the thermal conductivity of each pure fluid varies with scrit+. The ξ/scrit+ of each pure fluid is similar in each group, and the value of the fluid ξ/scrit+ of Group 3, which contains the largest number of fluids, is roughly 0.7; this is consistent with the viscosity’s RES model of Yang et al. (49) However, the scaling factor of the thermal conductivity model is more dispersed (for fluids in Group 3: the standard deviation of the viscosity scaling factor is 0.054, while the thermal conductivity scaling factor is 0.100). Experimental data of each group collapse into the individual global λres+ vs s+/ξ curves are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Scaling factor ξ. The denominator scrit+ is the plus-scaled dimensionless residual entropy at the critical point calculated with REFPROP 10.0 (50) of each pure fluid. The number at the top right of each box indicates the group number. The vertical dashed dotted line denotes ξ/scrit+ = 0.7. Values not shown in the figure: C16:0.29, C22:0.26, methyl stearate: 0.26, parahydrogen: 1.63, orthohydrogen: 1.61, hydrogen: 1.76, helium: 4.21, and deuterium (D2): 1.31. The names used in REFPROP 10.0 were adopted.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Values of λres+ as a function of s+/ξ of each group of pure fluids, where λres+ is the dimensionless residual thermal conductivity, s+ is the dimensionless residual entropy, and ξ is the scaling factor. The curves are calculated with the global ngk parameters. All groups are shown at the bottom; at the top, each group is individually illustrated but stacked by powers of 20 and with group number labeled.

Figure 4 shows the relative deviation of the experimental value λexp from the λRES calculated with the RES model; see SI-DPR for more detailed plots of each pure fluid. Please note that in calculating λRES, the fluid-specific fitted parameter nk is always preferred, while the global parameter ngk is used only if nk is not available in Table 3. The results showed that over 68.2% (corresponding to the standard deviation of a normal distribution) of the experimental data deviated from the RES model by less than 3.1%. To better reproduce some results of this work, a Python package implementing the developed RES method were provided in the SI, and the example calculations of each pure fluid and mixture are available in Table S6 and S7 in the SI. Here, we define the average relative deviation (ARD) of the experimental values λexp from model calculations and the average of the absolute value of the relative deviation (AARD) as
ARD=iN[(λEXP,iλRES,i)/λRES,i]N
(16)
AARD=iN[|(λEXP,iλRES,i)/λRES,i|]N
(17)
where N is the total number of experimental data points of a given fluid, and the ARD and AARD represent the system offset and scatter from the experimental data to the model, respectively. ARD for each pure fluid is shown in Figure 4, and AARD is listed in Table S4 of the SI. Considering the presence of low-quality data and the uncertainties introduced by dilute-gas calculation, only 86 and 105 of the 125 pure fluids have ARD absolute values less than 1.0% and 2.0%, respectively. For fluids with larger ARD, the possible reasons are as follows: very few experimental data are available (RE347mcc: ARD = −5.0%, 4 points; isopentane: ARD = 4.9%, 6 points); the experimental data cover a limited range of temperature and pressure (neon: ARD = 3.5%, experimental data are available only in the gas phase, i.e., near s+ = 0); the dilute gas thermal conductivity is inaccurate (acetylene: ARD = −2.9%; R245fa: ARD = −3.5%); the consistency of experimental data was poor (R41: ARD = −7.7%). For the 18 pure fluids of which more than 1000 experimental data points are available, absolute values of ARD are mainly less than 1.5% except propane (ARD = −2.2%) and water (ARD = 1.7%). For the 61 fluids with more than 200 experimental data points, the absolute ARD of RES model compared to experimental data is less than 2.5% except R245FA (ARD = −3.5%) and R123 (ARD = 4.6%).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Relative deviations of the experimental thermal conductivity λexp from values λRES calculated with the RES model. The short line indicates the average relative deviation; the shape shows the distribution of the relative deviation; and the colors are for a clear illustration only. Fluid-specific nk parameters are preferred, and only if they are not available in Table 3, global parameters ngk are used.

At last, the performance of the RES model was compared to the various recommended models implemented in REFPROP 10.0. The REFPROP models cannot calculate very few experimental data (0.10%, see Table 1). According to Table S4, the RES model shows smaller or equal AARD for 74 pure fluids out of 125 compared to REFPROP 10.0.

3.3. Prediction for Mixtures

In this section, the mixing rules described in Section 2 were utilized to calculate thermal conductivity of mixtures, and the results were compared to experimental data. At first, various mixing rules for mmix of mixtures in eq 3 were investigated. In the previous work, (49)mmix was determined as the mass fraction weighted average (mmix=iyimi). In this work, a few other mixing rules for mmix were studied, see Figure 5, and as a result, mmix=(iyimi)2 yielded the best performance. The slightly better performance of the mass fraction weighted average of m over m is consistent with the factor that m is in eq 3 rather than m.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Influence of different mixing rules of for mmix on the prediction of thermal conductivity of mixtures, where xi represents the mole fraction, yi represents the mass fraction, and mi is the molecular mass for component i. Deviation represents the maximum deviation corresponding to the standard deviation of a normal distribution (≈68.2%) of the selected experiment data.

With the new mixing rule for mmix, over 68.2% of the well-evaluated experimental data (see Table 1) exhibit agreement with the RES model within 4.6%. The performance of the RES model varies for mixtures from different groups, see Figure 6. For group LHC + LHC (“group a + b″ denotes binary mixtures with one component from group a and another from b), 7210 filtered experimental data points are available, and the ARD is a mere −0.4%. For group G + LHC, the ARD is only 0.6% and there are 1,575 experimental data points. Of course, there are also bad cases, e.g., for group LHC + MHC, there are 490 data points while the ARD is as high as 11.1%. It should be noted that the relatively large ARD and AARD for group LG + LG (ARD = 6.6%, AARD = 6.8%) may be attributed, in part, to the limited availability of experimental data (only 69 points) and the failure of the RES methods for quantum fluids, as reported by Yang et al. (49) Bell et al. (83) proposed a simple empirical model that introduces a thermal length scale relative to the packing length scale L to modify the classical residual entropy, quantifying the impact of quantum effects on the residual entropy scaling. This approach will improve the accuracy of residual entropy scaling models for quantum fluids such as hydrogen. However, in this study, a consistent mathematical expression was pursued for all fluids, and thus this improvement was not adopted.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Statistical summary of the relative deviation of the experimental data from model calculations for binary mixtures. All selected data: all experimental data collected and passed the three filters; Further filtered data: experimental data further filtered so that they can be calculated with the REFPROP models. ARD and AARD: the average relative deviation and the average of the absolute value of relative deviation of the experimental values from the model calculations, respectively. Please note that the blank areas in the figure indicate either the absence of available data or the inability of REFPROP to perform calculations.

The performance of the RES model for the mixture prediction was also compared to the REFPROP models. Each binary mixture has up to four additional binary interaction parameters in the ECS model (the most used model in REFPROP), while the RES model developed in this work does not require any additional adjustable parameters. The REFPROP models failed to calculate approximately 12% of the well-evaluated experimental data (see Table 1), mainly for mixtures of water and alcohol, as detailed in Table S5. After filtering out these data, the statistical results of both the RES and REFPROP models compared to the experimental data are shown in Figure 6. Detailed information is given in the 164 figures of each mixture in the SI-DPR. According to Table S5 in the SI, the RES model yields equal or lower AARD for 76 of all 164 mixtures compared to REFPROP models. Overall, without introducing any adjustable parameters, the developed RES model achieved a similar level of agreement with mixture experimental data as the REFPROP models.
The deviation from experimental data to both the RES and the REFPROP models exhibit certain similarities. For group LHC + MHC, both models have an AARD exceeding 10%, and the deviations for the mixtures of group LG + LG and LG + G also surpass 6%, which all exceed the typical uncertainty (5%) of experimental thermal conductivity data. This reflects the limitations of existing models in mixture calculation and might also imply that higher-quality experimental data is needed for some mixture groups. For cyclohexane (group LG) + decane (group MHC), (84,85) the ARD for the RES and REFPROP models are 14.8% and 12%, respectively, and for D2 (group LG) + H2 (group LG), (86−88) both models exhibit significant negative deviations (RES: −7.7%, REFPROP: −7.6%). These indicate the need for adding adjustable parameters to the mixing rules to improve model performance, which will be our future work.
To better illustrate the calculation results of mixtures, the s+ vs λres+ plots of nine mixtures of which more than 500 experimental data were available, are illustrated in Figure 7. Figures of other mixtures are provided in the SI-DPR. Five mixtures have more than 1000 data (ethanol + water, (89−101) R125 + R134a, (102−104) R32 + R134a, (103,104) propane + R32, (104) and R32 + R125 + R134a (103)) and four mixtures have data between 500 and 1000 (ethylene glycol + water, (97,105−115) heptane + isooctane, (116−119) R125 + R32, (103,120−125) and propane + R134a (104)). Among these 9 mixtures, for binary mixtures of heptane + isooctane, R125 + R134a, R32 + R134a, and R125 + R32, the s+ vs λres+ characteristic lines are distinct, and the AARD of the experimental data from model prediction is less than 3%. The model prediction is worse for group LA + SA: the AARD is 5.4% for water + ethanol, and 6.3% for ethylene glycol + water. Especially, the maximum absolute deviation for water + ethanol and ethylene glycol + water exceeds 20% (21.2% and 23.7%, respectively). Cautions should be taken when using this model to calculate the thermal conductivity of fluids containing water and alcohols. For propane + R32 and propane + R134a, there are “no data” between s+ = 1 and 2, and the deviation from the s+ vs λres+ characteristic line increases at s+ ≈ 2. This is because the experimental data in this range are either considered to be in the two-phase region by REFPROP 10.0 and thus filtered out by Filter 2, or have high deviation but not reaching the criteria of Filter 3. Data of three multicomponent mixtures: R32 + R125 + R134a, (103) R32 + R1234yf + CO2, (103) and R32 + R125 + R134a + R1234yf + CO2 (103) were also collected in this work. Without introducing additional adjustable parameters, the AARD of the RES model is 2.3%, 4.0%, and 1.5% for these mixtures, respectively.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Relation between λres+ and s+ for mixtures that have more than 500 experimental data points: (a) heptane + isooctane, (116−119) (b) R125 + R134a, (102−104) (c) R32 + R134a, (103,104) (d) R125 + R32, (103,120−125) (e) ethanol + water, (89−101) (f) ethylene glycol + water, (97,105−115) (g) propane + R134a, (104) (h) propane + R32, (104) and (i) R32 + R125 + R134a. (103) Different colors and symbols represent experimental data from different sources. For specific literature information, please refer to SI-DPR.

The critical enhancement model proposed by Olchowy and Sengers (51) was incorporated in many multiparameter thermal conductivity models for pure fluids, including propane (126) and CO2 (127) and was successfully applied to refrigerants in our previous work. (48) When the critical enhancement model was applied to mixtures in this work, a “strange behavior” was observed: For certain mixtures, the calculated critical term ΔλC,mix at conditions far away from the critical point is less than zero, which is abnormal. Further investigation reveals that REFPROP 10.0 considered these experimental points in a two-phase region and yielded negative infinity value of specific heat capacities needed in eqs 7 and 8. To solve this problem, ΔλC,mix was forced to be zero if it was calculated to be negative. As a result, the critical enhancement model proposed by Olchowy and Sengers (51) obviously improved the accuracy of the model. Although there are a few cases where the deviation increases, the introduction of the critical enhancement term reduces the AARD of 29 mixtures, and the AARD of 7 mixtures is reduced by more than 2%. All mixtures with a change in AARD for more than 1% and with sufficient experimental data are shown in Table 5. It is worth mentioning that for CO2+ethane, the ARD decreases significantly from 10.2% to 1.7%.
Table 5. Mixtures for Which the Critical Enhancement Term Changes AARD by More than 1%
 with critical enhancementwithout critical enhancement 
mixture nameARD/%AARD/%ARD/%AARD/%AARD change/%
CO2 + ethane1.75.810.210.95.1
helium + R14–3.43.6884.4
R14 + R221.75.98.19.43.5
CO2 + ethylene–1.92.84.15.52.7
argon + R14–0.734.85.12.1
R143a + R1234yf0.61.72.93.51.8
R134a + R1234ze(E)1.65.73.27.31.6
R143a + R1234ze(E)–0.82.70.84.11.4
R125 + R1234ze(E)02.41.33.41
R152a + R218–8.210.2–79.2–1
R125 + R143a–8.48.4–4.65.5–2.9
Three fluid mixtures were selected to show the impact of the critical enhancement term with their λ vs pr plots shown in Figure 7. For CO2 + ethane (128) and CO2 + ethylene, (129) the thermal conductivity values predicted by the RES model without the critical enhancement term are generally lower than the experimental data, while those with the critical enhancement term are generally closer to the experimental data. Of course, the critical enhancement model of Olchowy and Sengers (51) is not perfect: (1) As shown by the data of CO2 + ethane (129) in Figure 8a, the peak values of experiment data cannot be predicted by the model; (2) the AARD increases for some mixtures (e.g., R125 + R143a, (121) see Figure 8c) after introducing the critical term, likely due to the overcorrection of critical effects by the critical term.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Thermal conductivity experimental data and model prediction of some fluid mixtures with temperature close to the critical point, where pr = p/pc is the reduced pressure relative to critical pressure: (a) CO2 + ethane, (128) (b) CO2 + ethylene, (129) and (c) R125 + R143a. (121) The molar fraction of each component is indicated. The critical temperature and pressure were calculated with REFPROP 10.0.

4. Conclusion, Discussion, and Future Work

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this work, we collected experimental thermal conductivity data for 125 pure fluids and 164 mixtures and developed a residual entropy scaling (RES) model for thermal conductivity. Using a simple polynomial equation, this method uses reference equations of state (EOS) in REFPROP 10.0 to calculate the residual entropy and link residual thermal conductivity to residual entropy. The 125 fluids were classified into 8 different groups, and data of each group collapsed into a characterized residual thermal conductivity vs residual entropy curve. More than 68.2% (corresponding to a standard deviation of a normal distribution) of the evaluated experimental data agree with the RES model within 3.1% for pure fluids. Compared to the various models implemented in REFPROP 10.0, the RES model provides a smaller or equal AARD for 74 out of 125 pure fluids, indicating a similar accuracy level with fewer adjustable parameters. The accuracy of the RES model is affected by the accuracy of the residual entropy, and this implies that the accuracy of our model can be further improved with updates to the reference EOS in REFPROP.
Using simple mixing rules without adjustable parameters, more than 68.2% of the well-evaluated experimental data agree with the RES model within 4.6% for mixtures. The mixing rules proposed in this work lead to a promising result for mixtures of the same group. The situation is different for mixtures from different groups, which may be related to the degree of asymmetry within the system. Nevertheless, without introducing new parameters, the RES model yielded a lower AARD than the REFPROP model for 76 of the 164 mixtures. Further refinement of the mixing rules for different pairs of fluid properties will be carried out to achieve better prediction results.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c02946.

  • Tables of dilute gas calculation parameters of pure fluids; of reference equation of state and the recommended thermal conductivity model in REFPROP 10.0; of names, group, and constants of pure fluids; for statistics of the experimental data of pure fluids; for statistics of the experimental data of fluid mixtures; for sample thermal conductivity calculations of pure substances with the recommended models in REFPROP 10.0 and the RES model; for sample thermal conductivity calculations of binaries with the recommended models in REFPROP 10.0 and the RES model; and for thermal conductivity as a function of residual entropy for each group and figures for relative deviation from experimental data of pure fluids to model predictions and relative deviation from experimental data of fluid mixtures to model predictions (PDF)

  • Python package for residual entropy scaling model calculation (ZIP)

  • Detailed plots and references of all collected experimental data (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Yuanyuan Duan - Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Key Laboratory for CO2 Utilization and Reduction Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,People’s Republic of ChinaSouthwest United Graduate School, Kunming 650092, People’s Republic of ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4117-7545 Email: [email protected]
    • Xiaoxian Yang - Applied Thermodynamics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz 09107, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-3156 Email: [email protected]
  • Author
    • Zhuo Li - Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Key Laboratory for CO2 Utilization and Reduction Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,People’s Republic of China
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The realization of the project and the scientific work was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project of China (J2019-I-0009-0009), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag (funding code 03SF0623A), and the Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Project at Southwest United Graduate School (202302AO370018). The authors gratefully acknowledge this support and carry the full responsibility for the content of this paper. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Ian. H. Bell of the National Institute of Standards and Technology for his help in compiling the reference list of experimental data.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 129 other publications.

  1. 1
    Li, H. L.; Dong, B. B.; Yu, Z. X.; Yan, J. Y.; Zhu, K. Thermo-physical properties of CO2 mixtures and their impacts on CO2 capture, transport and storage: Progress since 2011. Appl. Energy 2019, 255, 113789  DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113789
  2. 2
    Huber, M. L.; Lemmon, E. W.; Bell, I. H.; McLinden, M. O. The NIST REFPROP Database for Highly Accurate Properties of Industrially Important Fluids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022, 61 (42), 1544915472,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01427
  3. 3
    Li, J.; Peng, X.; Yang, Z.; Hu, S.; Duan, Y. Design, improvements and applications of dual-pressure evaporation organic Rankine cycles: A review. Appl. Energy 2022, 311, 118609  DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118609
  4. 4
    Wang, F. A.; Zhu, J. Q.; Chen, H. S.; Wang, W. C.; Jiang, Y. L. A new model of thermal conductivity for liquids. Chem. Eng. J. 2000, 78 (2–3), 187191,  DOI: 10.1016/S1385-8947(00)00152-2
  5. 5
    Kandiyoti, R.; Mclaughlin, E. Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Dense Hard Sphere Fluid Mixtures. Mol. Phys. 1969, 17 (6), 643653,  DOI: 10.1080/00268976900101521
  6. 6
    Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Pollak, S.; Schmidt, K. A. G. Friction Theory Model for Thermal Conductivity. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2021, 66 (11), 42154227,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.1c00400
  7. 7
    Jia, H.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X.; Gao, B. Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Model of HFOs and HFO/HFC Mixtures Based on Friction Theory. Int. J. Thermophys. 2023, 44 (5), 76,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-023-03189-z
  8. 8
    Huber, M. L. Models for Viscosity, Thermal Conductivity, and Surface Tension of Selected Pure Fluids as Implemented in REFPROP v10.0; NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) 8209; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 2018.
  9. 9
    McLinden, M. O.; Klein, S. A.; Perkins, R. A. An extended corresponding states model for the thermal conductivity of refrigerants and refrigerant mixtures. Int. J. Refrig. 2000, 23 (1), 4363,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-7007(99)00024-9
  10. 10
    Rosenfeld, Y. A quasi-universal scaling law for atomic transport in simple fluids. J. Phys.: Condens.Matter 1999, 11 (28), 54155427,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/11/28/303
  11. 11
    Gnan, N.; Schrøder, T. B.; Pedersen, U. R.; Bailey, N. P.; Dyre, J. C. Pressure-energy correlations in liquids. IV. ″Isomorphs″ in liquid phase diagrams. J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131 (23), 234504,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3265957
  12. 12
    Schrøder, T. B.; Gnan, N.; Pedersen, U. R.; Bailey, N. P.; Dyre, J. C. Pressure-energy correlations in liquids. V. Isomorphs in generalized Lennard-Jones systems. J. Chem. Phys. 2011, 134 (16), 164505,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3582900
  13. 13
    Bell, I. H. Probing the link between residual entropy and viscosity of molecular fluids and model potentials. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116 (10), 40704079,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815943116
  14. 14
    Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-I: A Case Study of Propane. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (6), 32033215,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00209
  15. 15
    Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-II: Predictive Scheme for Normal Alkanes. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (11), 56065616,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00749
  16. 16
    Bell, I. H.; Messerly, R.; Thol, M.; Costigliola, L.; Dyre, J. C. Modified Entropy Scaling of the Transport Properties of the Lennard-Jones Fluid. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123 (29), 63456363,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b05808
  17. 17
    Yang, X. X.; Xiao, X.; May, E. F.; Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-III: Application to Refrigerants and Their Mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2021, 66 (3), 13851398,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c01009
  18. 18
    Al Ghafri, S. Z.; Akhfash, M.; Hughes, T. J.; Xiao, X.; Yang, X.; May, E. F. High pressure viscosity measurements of ternary (methane+ propane+ heptane) mixtures. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 223, 106984  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106984
  19. 19
    Kim, D.; Liu, H. T.; Yang, X. X.; Yang, F. F.; Morfitt, J.; Arami-Niya, A.; Ryu, M.; Duan, Y. Y.; May, E. F. Thermal conductivity measurements and correlations of pure R1243zf and binary mixtures of R32+R1243zf and R32+R1234yf Int. J. Refrig. 2021, 131, 990999,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2021.07.019
  20. 20
    Yang, X. X.; Hanzelmann, C.; Feja, S.; Trusler, J. P. M.; Richter, M. Thermophysical Property Modeling of Lubricant Oils and Their Mixtures with Refrigerants Using a Minimal Set of Experimental Data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (44), 1873618749,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02474
  21. 21
    Yang, X. X.; Liu, H. T.; Chen, S. H.; Kim, D.; Yang, F. F.; Arami-Niya, A.; Duan, Y. Y. Viscosity of binary refrigerant mixtures of R32+R1234yf and R32+R1243zf. Int. J. Refrig. 2021, 128, 197205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.11.020
  22. 22
    Yang, X.; Xiao, X.; Thol, M.; Richter, M.; Bell, I. A Residual Entropy Scaling Approach for Viscosity of Refrigerants, Other Fluids, and Their Mixtures. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Refrigeration; Paris, France, August 21–25, 2023.
  23. 23
    Liu, H.; Yang, F.; zhang, K.; Duan, Y.; Yang, Z. Residual Entropy Scaling Model for the Viscosity of Noble Gases. Gongcheng Rewuli Xuebao 2021, 42, 18
  24. 24
    Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, X. X.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Modeling the thermal conductivity of hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins and their binary mixtures using residual entropy scaling and cubic-plus-association equation of state. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 330, 115612  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2021.115612
  25. 25
    Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Modeling the viscosity of hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins and their binary mixtures using residual entropy scaling and cubic-plus-association equation of state. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 308, 113027  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113027
  26. 26
    Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Crossover residual entropy scaling of the viscosity and thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 368, 120799  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.120799
  27. 27
    Kang, K.; Gu, Y. X.; Wang, X. P. Assessment and development of the viscosity prediction capabilities of entropy scaling method coupled with a modified binary interaction parameter estimation model for refrigerant blends. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 358, 119184  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.119184
  28. 28
    Kang, K.; Li, X. L.; Gu, Y. X.; Wang, X. P. Thermal conductivity prediction of pure refrigerants and mixtures based on entropy-scaling concept. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 368, 120568  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.120568
  29. 29
    Kang, K.; Yang, S.; Gu, Y.; Wang, X. Density and viscosity measurement of R513A and a modified residual entropy scaling model for predicting the viscosity of HFC/HFO refrigerants. Int. J. Refrig. 2024, 162, 204214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2024.04.008
  30. 30
    Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity of Real Substances from Excess Entropy Scaling Using PCP-SAFT. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56 (15), 45274538,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04289
  31. 31
    Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity from Entropy Scaling: A Group-Contribution Method. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (44), 2044120449,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04289
  32. 32
    Hopp, M.; Mele, J.; Hellmann, R.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity via Entropy Scaling: An Approach That Captures the Effect of Intramolecular Degrees of Freedom. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (39), 1843218438,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b03998
  33. 33
    Lötgering-Lin, O.; Fischer, M.; Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Pure Substance and Mixture Viscosities Based on Entropy Scaling and an Analytic Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57 (11), 40954114,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b04871
  34. 34
    Lötgering-Lin, O.; Gross, J. Group Contribution Method for Viscosities Based on Entropy Scaling Using the Perturbed-Chain Polar Statistical Associating Fluid Theory. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54 (32), 79427952,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01698
  35. 35
    Lötgering-Lin, O.; Schöniger, A.; Nowak, W.; Gross, J. Bayesian Model Selection Helps To Choose Objectively between Thermodynamic Models: A Demonstration of Selecting a Viscosity Model Based on Entropy Scaling. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55 (38), 1019110207,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b02671
  36. 36
    Sauer, E.; Stavrou, M.; Gross, J. Comparison between a Homo- and a Heterosegmented Group Contribution Approach Based on the Perturbed-Chain Polar Statistical Associating Fluid Theory Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (38), 1485414864,  DOI: 10.1021/ie502203w
  37. 37
    Vijande, J.; Piñeiro, M. M.; Bessières, D.; Saint-Guirons, H.; Legido, J. L. Description of PVT behaviour of hydrofluoroethers using the PC-SAFT EOS. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6 (4), 766770,  DOI: 10.1039/B312223A
  38. 38
    Dehlouz, A.; Jaubert, J. N.; Galliero, G.; Bonnissel, M.; Privat, R. Combining the entropy-scaling concept and cubic- or SAFT equations of state for modelling thermal conductivities of pure fluids. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2022, 196, 123286  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123286
  39. 39
    Rosenfeld, Y. Quasi-universal scaling law for atomic transport in simple fluids. J. Phys. IV 2000, 10 (P5), 129134,  DOI: 10.1051/jp4:2000517
  40. 40
    Le Guennec, Y.; Privat, R.; Jaubert, J.-N. Development of the translated-consistent tc-PR and tc-RK cubic equations of state for a safe and accurate prediction of volumetric, energetic and saturation properties of pure compounds in the sub-and super-critical domains. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2016, 429, 301312,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2016.09.003
  41. 41
    Moine, E.; Piña-Martinez, A.; Jaubert, J. N.; Sirjean, B.; Privat, R. I-PC-SAFT: An Industrialized Version of the Volume-Translated PC-SAFT Equation of State for Pure Components, Resulting from Experience Acquired All through the Years on the Parameterization of SAFT-Type and Cubic Models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (45), 2081520827,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04660
  42. 42
    Yang, F. F.; Liu, Q.; Duan, Y. Y.; Yang, Z. Crossover multiparameter equation of state: General procedure and demonstration with carbon dioxide. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2019, 494, 161171,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2019.04.035
  43. 43
    Fouad, W. A. Thermal Conductivity of Pure Fluids and Multicomponent Mixtures Using Residual Entropy Scaling with PC-SAFT-Application to Refrigerant Blends. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (12), 56885697,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00682
  44. 44
    Gross, J.; Sadowski, G. Perturbed-chain SAFT: An equation of state based on a perturbation theory for chain molecules. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40 (4), 12441260,  DOI: 10.1021/ie0003887
  45. 45
    Yang, F. F.; Chu, Q. F.; Liu, Q.; Duan, Y. Y.; Yang, Z. The cubic-plus-association equation of state for hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, and their binary mixtures. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 209, 115182  DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2019.115182
  46. 46
    Rokni, H. B.; Moore, J. D.; Gavaises, M. Entropy-scaling based pseudo-component viscosity and thermal conductivity models for hydrocarbon mixtures and fuels containing iso-alkanes and two-ring saturates. Fuel 2021, 283, 118877  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118877
  47. 47
    Rokni, H. B.; Moore, J. D.; Gupta, A.; McHugh, M. A.; Mallepally, R. R.; Gavaises, M. General method for prediction of thermal conductivity for well-characterized hydrocarbon mixtures and fuels up to extreme conditions using entropy scaling. Fuel 2019, 245, 594604,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.044
  48. 48
    Yang, X. X.; Kim, D. C.; May, E. F.; Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Thermal Conductivity: Application to Refrigerants and Their Mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60 (35), 1305213070,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c02154
  49. 49
    Yang, X.; Xiao, X.; Thol, M.; Richter, M.; Bell, I. H. Linking Viscosity to Equations of State Using Residual Entropy Scaling Theory. Int. J. Thermophys. 2022, 43 (12), 183,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-022-03096-9
  50. 50
    Lemmon, E. W.; Bell, I. H.; Huber, M.; McLinden, M. NIST standard reference database 23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP, Version 10.0. In Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser.; (NIST NSRDS); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 2018.
  51. 51
    Olchowy, G. A.; Sengers, J. V. A Simplified Representation for the Thermal-Conductivity of Fluids in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10 (2), 417426,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01133538
  52. 52
    Frenkel, M.; Chirico, R. D.; Diky, V.; Yan, X.; Dong, Q.; Muzny, C. ThermoData Engine (TDE): software implementation of the dynamic data evaluation concept. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2005, 45 (4), 816838,  DOI: 10.1021/ci050067b
  53. 53
    Yang, X.; Richter, M. OilMixProp 1.0: Package for thermophysical properties of oils, common fluids and their mixtures. In International Conference on Screw Machines 2024, September 3–5, Germany, Dortmund.
  54. 54
    Bell, I. H.; Wronski, J.; Quoilin, S.; Lemort, V. Pure and Pseudo-pure Fluid Thermophysical Property Evaluation and the Open-Source Thermophysical Property Library CoolProp. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (6), 24982508,  DOI: 10.1021/ie4033999
  55. 55
    Bell, I. H.; Quoilin, S.; Wronski, J.; Lemort, V. CoolProp: An Open-Source Reference-Quality Thermophysical Property Library. In ASME ORC 2nd International Seminar on ORC Power Systems; DTU Library: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
  56. 56
    Wilke, C. R. A Viscosity Equation for Gas Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 1950, 18 (4), 517519,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1747673
  57. 57
    Chichester, J.; Huber, M. L. Documentation and Assessment of the Transport Property Model for Mixtures Implemented in NIST REFPROP, Version 8.0; National Institute of Standards and Technology:: Gaithersburg, MD, 2008.
  58. 58
    Golubev, I. F.; Sokolova, V. P. Thermal Conductivity of Ammonia at Various Temperatures and Pressures. Teploenergetika 1964, 11 (9), 6467
  59. 59
    Gutweiler, J.; Raw, C. J. G. Transport Properties of Polar Gas Mixtures II. Heat Conductivities of Ammonia-Methylamine Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 1968, 48, 24132415,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1669462
  60. 60
    Richter, G. N.; Sage, B. H. Thermal Conductivity of Fluids. Ammonia. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1964, 9, 7578,  DOI: 10.1021/je60020a022
  61. 61
    Senftleben, H. New values of thermal conductivity and specific heat at different temperatures for a series of gases. Z. Angew. Phys. 1964, 17, 8687
  62. 62
    Shamsetdinov, F. N.; Zaripov, Z. I.; Abdulagatov, I. M.; Huber, M. L.; Gumerov, F. M.; Gabitov, F. R.; Kazakov, A. F. Experimental study of the thermal conductivity of ammonia D water refrigerant mixtures at temperatures from 278 to 356 K and at pressures up to 20 MPa. Int. J. Refrig. 2013, 36, 13471368,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.02.008
  63. 63
    Varlashkin, P. G.; Thompson, J. C. Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Ammonia. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1963, 8, 526526,  DOI: 10.1021/je60019a014
  64. 64
    Assael, M. J.; Karagiannidis, E. Measurements of the Thermal-Conductivity of R22, R123, and R134a in the Temperature-Range 250–340-K at Pressures up to 30 MPa. Int. J. Thermophys. 1993, 14 (2), 183197,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00507807
  65. 65
    Chaikovskiy, V. F.; Geller, V. Z.; Gorykin, S. F.; Artamonov, S. D.; Bondar, G. E.; Ivanchenko, S. I.; Lenskiy, L. R.; Peredriy, V. G. Comprehensive Investigation of the Thermophysical Properties of Most Important and Promising Refrigerants in Liquid and Gaseous Phase. Teplofiz. Svoistva Zhidk., Collect. Vol. 1976, 108117
  66. 66
    Cherneeva, L. I. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Freon-22. Kholod. Tekhn. 1953, 30, 6063
  67. 67
    Cherneeva, L. I. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Freons. Kholod. Tekhn. 1955, 32, 2324
  68. 68
    Fellows, B. R.; Richard, R. G.; Shankland, I. R. Thermal Conductivity Data for Some Environmentally Acceptable Fluorocarbons. Therm. Conduct. 1990, 21, 311325
  69. 69
    Geller, V. Z.; Ivanchenko, S. I.; Peredriy, V. G. Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Coefficients of Difluorudichloromethane. Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Neft Gaz 1973, 6165
  70. 70
    Hammerschmidt, U. Thermal-Conductivity of a Wide-Range of Alternative Refrigerants Measured with an Improved Guarded Hot-Plate Apparatus. Int. J. Thermophys. 1995, 16 (5), 12031211,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02081288
  71. 71
    Kim, S. H.; Kim, D. S.; Kim, M. S.; Ro, S. T. The Thermal-Conductivity of R22, R142b, R152a, and Their Mixtures in the Liquid-State. Int. J. Thermophys. 1993, 14 (4), 937950,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00502116
  72. 72
    Le Neindre, B.; Garrabos, Y.; Sabirzianov, A.; Goumerov, F. Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity of Chlorodifluoromethane in the Temperature Range of 300K to 515K and at Pressures up to 55 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2001, 46, 193201,  DOI: 10.1021/je0002078
  73. 73
    Makita, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Morimoto, Y.; Noguchi, M.; Kubota, H. Thermal Conductivity of Gaseous Fluorocarbon Refrigerants R 12, R13, and R 23, Under Pressure. Int. J. Thermophys. 1981, 2, 249268,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00504188
  74. 74
    Potapov, M. D. The Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Binary Mixtures of Halogenated Hydrocarbons. Ph. D. Thesis, Odessa Technological Institute of Food Industry: Odessa, USSR, 1988.
  75. 75
    Sadyikov, A. K. Experimental Investigation of Some Thermophysical Properties of Polyoxy Compounds; Kazan Technical Institute for Refrigeration: Kazan, USSR, 1978.
  76. 76
    Shestova, A. I. The Investigation of Thermal Conductivity of Freons of the Methane Type; Institute of Theoretical Physics: Novosibirsk, USSR, 1977.
  77. 77
    Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivities of Freons and Their Binary Mixtures. In Proc Eighth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties; ASME: New York, 1982.
  78. 78
    Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptyev, Y. A. Thermal-Conductivity of Difluoromonochloromethane in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 1991, 12 (1), 5365,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00506122
  79. 79
    Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptev, Y. A.; Asambaev, A. G. The thermal conductivity of binary mixtures of liquid R22 with R142b and R152a at low temperatures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1996, 17 (3), 597606,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01441506
  80. 80
    Zaporozhan, G. V. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Some Freons at Low Temperatures; Grozny Petroleum Institute: Grozny, USSR, 1978.
  81. 81
    Jäger, A.; Steinberg, L.; Mickoleit, E.; Thol, M. Residual entropy scaling for long-chain linear alkanes and isomers of alkanes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (8), 37673791,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04238
  82. 82
    Mickoleit, E.; Jäger, A.; Turuelo, C. G.; Thol, M.; Bell, I. H.; Breitkopf, C. Group Contribution Method for the Residual Entropy Scaling Model for Viscosities of Branched Alkanes. Int. J. Thermophys. 2023, 44 (12), 176,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-023-03289-w
  83. 83
    Bell, I. H.; Leachman, J. W.; Rigosi, A. F.; Hill, H. M. Quantum Entropic Effects in the Liquid Viscosities of Hydrogen, Deuterium, and Neon. Phys. Fluids 2023, 35 (8), 081703  DOI: 10.1063/5.0164037
  84. 84
    Kravchun, S. N. Thermal-Conductivity of Binary-Liquid Systems. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1986, 60 (9), 21762179
  85. 85
    Naziev, Y. M.; Gumbatov, A. M.; Akhmedov, A. K.; Abasov, A. A.; Abasov, R. A. Experimental study of thermal conductivity of liquid binary cyclohexane-n-decane mixtures at high pressures. Izv. Vyssh. Uchebdn. Zaved. 1985, 28, 57
  86. 86
    Archer, C. T. Thermal Conduction in Hydrogen-Deuterium Mixtures. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 1938, 165, 474485,  DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0072
  87. 87
    Minter, C.; Schuldiner, S. Thermal Conductivity of Equilibrated Mixtures of H2’, D2’, and HD. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1959, 4 (3), 223226,  DOI: 10.1021/je60003a010
  88. 88
    Saxena, S. C.; Tondon, P. K. Experimental Data and Procedures for Predicting Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Nonpolar Gases. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1971, 16 (2), 212220,  DOI: 10.1021/je60049a032
  89. 89
    Bates, O. K.; Hazzard, G.; Palmer, G. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1938, 10, 314318,  DOI: 10.1021/ac50122a006
  90. 90
    Filippov, L. P. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 3: Fiz. Astr. 1960, 15, 43- 50 DOI:.
  91. 91
    Gillam, D. G.; Lamm, O. Certain Liquids using the Hot Wire Method. Acta Chem. Scand. 1955, 9, 657660
  92. 92
    Henneberg, H. Ueber das wärmeleitungsvermögen der mischungen von aethylalkohol und wasser; Druck C. Gerold's sohn: 1888.
  93. 93
    Lees, C. H. X. On the Thermal Conductivities of Single and Mixed Solids and Liquids and Their Variation with Temperature. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 1898, 191, 339440,  DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1898.0010
  94. 94
    Loewen, J. A.; Popov, V. N.; Malov, B. A. Comparative Theories of Social Change ; 1969, 87- 89. DOI:  DOI: 10.1177/009182966901600205 .
  95. 95
    Popov, V. N.; Malov, B. A. Teploenergetika 1971, 18, 88- 90DOI:  DOI: 10.1093/nq/18-3-88 .
  96. 96
    Qun-Fang, L.; Ruisen, L.; Dan-Yan, N.; Yu-Chun, H. Thermal Conductivities of Some Organic Solvents and Their Binary Mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1997, 42 (5), 971974,  DOI: 10.1021/je960351m
  97. 97
    Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Aqueous Solutions of Organic Liquids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1966, 40, 869871
  98. 98
    Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Nonelectrolytes. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1967, 41 (11), 29012907
  99. 99
    Riedel, L. Chem.-Ing.-Technol. 1951, 23, 465,  DOI: 10.1002/cite.330231902
  100. 100
    Tsederberg, N. V. Teploenergetika 1956, 3, 42- 48
  101. 101
    Zhou, J. C.; Che, Y. Y.; Wu, K. J.; Shen, J.; He, C. H. Thermal Conductivity of DMSO + C2H5OH, DMSO + H2O, and DMSO + C2H5OH + H2O Mixtures at T = (278.15 to 338.15) K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2013, 58, 663670,  DOI: 10.1021/je301171y
  102. 102
    Jeong, S. U.; Kim, M. S.; Ro, S. T. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Pentafluoroethane (R125) and 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R134a). Int. J. Thermophys. 1999, 20, 5562,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021469928377
  103. 103
    Kim, D.; Yang, X. X.; Arami-Niya, A.; Rowland, D.; Xiao, X.; Al Ghafri, S. Z. S.; Tsuji, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Seiki, Y.; May, E. F. Thermal Conductivity Measurements of Refrigerant Mixtures Containing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a), Hydrofluoroolefins (HFO-1234yf), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2020, 151, 106248  DOI: 10.1016/j.jct.2020.106248
  104. 104
    Perkins, R.; Schwarzberg, E.; Gao, X. Experimental Thermal Conductivity Values for Mixtures of R32, R125, R134a, and Propane; NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.
  105. 105
    Assael, M. J.; Charitidou, E.; Avgoustiniatos, S.; Wakeham, W. A. Absolute Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Alkene-Glycols with Water. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10, 11271140,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00500567
  106. 106
    Bates, O. K.; Hazzard, G. Thermal Conductivity of Alcohols and Glycols. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1945, 37, 193195,  DOI: 10.1021/ie50422a021
  107. 107
    Bogacheva, I. S.; Zemdikhanov, K. B.; Mukhamedzyanov, G. K.; Sadykov, A. K.; Usmanov, A. G. Heat Conductivity of Mixtures of Organic Liquids. Zh. Fiz. Khim 1980, 54, 14681470
  108. 108
    Bohne, D.; Fischer, S.; Obermeier, E. Thermal Conductivity, Density, Viscosity, and Prandtl Numbers of Ethylene Glycol-Water Mixtures. Ber. Bunsen-Ges. Phys. Chem. 1984, 88, 739742,  DOI: 10.1002/bbpc.19840880813
  109. 109
    Ganiev, Y. A.; Rastorgu, Y. L. Thermal Conductivity of Mixed Non-Electrolyte Solutions. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1968, 42, 68
  110. 110
    Grigrev, A. Thermal Conductivity: Water and Water-Organic Systems. Sov. Un. Gov. Bur. Stand., Grozny Oil Inst., Infor. Seri 1985.
  111. 111
    Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Organic Liquids. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1967, 41, 1352
  112. 112
    Riedel, L. Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Several Organic Compounds with Water. Chem.-Ing.-Technol. 1951, 23, 465,  DOI: 10.1002/cite.330231902
  113. 113
    Sun, T.; Teja, A. S. Density, Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Aqueous Ethylene, Diethylene and Triethylene Glycol Mixtures between 290 and 450 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2003, 48, 198202,  DOI: 10.1021/je025610o
  114. 114
    Usmanov, I. U.; Salikhov, A. S. The Concentration Variation of the Thermal Conductivities of Certain Aqueous Solutions of Organic Liquids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1977, 51, 14881489
  115. 115
    Vanderkooi, W. N.; Hildenbrand, D. L.; Stull, D. R. Liquid Thermal Conductivities: The Apparatus, Values for Several Glycols and Their Aqueous Solutions, and Five High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1967, 12, 377379,  DOI: 10.1021/je60034a023
  116. 116
    Fareleira, J. M. N. A.; Li, S. F. Y.; Wakeham, W. A. The Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Mixtures at Elevated Pressures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10, 10411051,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00503172
  117. 117
    Naziev, D. Y.; Aliev, A. M. Research of Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of n-Heptane-Isooctane at High Parameters of State. Teplofiz. Vys. Temp. 1992, 30, 294298
  118. 118
    Wakeham, W. A.; Yu, H. R.; Zalaf, M. The Thermal Conductivity of the Mixtures of Liquid Hydrocarbons at Pressures up to 400 MPa. Int. J. Thermophys. 1990, 11, 9871000,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00500554
  119. 119
    Yu, H. The Measurement of the Thermal Conductivity for Liquid with the Transient Hot-Wire Instrument. Beijing Shiyou Huagong Xueyuan Xuebao 1993, 1, 2936
  120. 120
    Gao, X.; Nagasaka, Y.; Nagashima, A. Thermal Conductivity of Binary Refrigerant Mixtures of HFC-32/125 and HFC-32/134a in the Liquid Phase. Int. J. Thermophys. 1999, 20, 14031415,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021432920199
  121. 121
    Geller, V. Z.; Nemzer, B. V.; Cheremnykh, U. V. Thermal Conductivity of the Refrigerant Mixtures R404A, R407C, R410A, and R507A. Int. J. Thermophys. 2001, 22, 10351043,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1010691504352
  122. 122
    Matsuo, S.; Tanaka, Y. Measurements of Transport Properties and Their Problems. Rev. High Press. Sci. Technol. 1994, 3 (4), 346353,  DOI: 10.4131/jshpreview.3.346
  123. 123
    Ro, S. T.; Kim, M. S.; Jeong, S. U. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Difluoromethane (R32) and Pentafluoroethane (R125). Int. J. Thermophys. 1997, 18, 991999,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02575243
  124. 124
    Tanaka, Y.; Matsuo, S.; Taya, S. Gaseous Thermal Conductivity of Difluoromethane (HFC-32), Pentafluoroethane (HFC-125), and Their Mixtures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1995, 16, 121131,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01438963
  125. 125
    Tomimura, T.; Maki, S.; Zhang, X.; Fujii, M. Measurements of Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of Alternative Refrigerants in Liquid Phase with a Transient Short-Hot-Wire Method. Jpn. J. Thermophys. Prop. 2001, 15, 914,  DOI: 10.2963/jjtp.15.9
  126. 126
    Marsh, K. N.; Perkins, R. A.; Ramires, M. L. V. Measurement and Correlation of the Thermal Conductivity of Propane from 86 to 600 K at Pressures to 70 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2002, 47 (4), 932940,  DOI: 10.1021/je010001m
  127. 127
    Huber, M. L.; Sykioti, E. A.; Assael, M. J.; Perkins, R. A. Reference Correlation of the Thermal Conductivity of Carbon Dioxide from the Triple Point to 1100 K and up to 200 MPa. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 2016, 45 (1), 013102  DOI: 10.1063/1.4940892
  128. 128
    Mostert, R.; Sengers, J. V. Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Ethane in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 2008, 29 (4), 12051221,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-008-0482-1
  129. 129
    Junk, W. A.; Comings, E. W. Thermal Conductivity of Gas Mixtures at High Pressure: Ethylene-Nitrogen and Ethylene-Carbon Dioxide. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1953, 49, 263266

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Cite this: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2024, 63, 42, 18160–18175
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c02946
Published October 15, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

318

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Characteristic λres+ vs s+ curves of (a) ammonia (58−63) and (b) R22. (64−80) The definitions of Filter 1, 2, and 3 can be found in the footnote of Table 1.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Scaling factor ξ. The denominator scrit+ is the plus-scaled dimensionless residual entropy at the critical point calculated with REFPROP 10.0 (50) of each pure fluid. The number at the top right of each box indicates the group number. The vertical dashed dotted line denotes ξ/scrit+ = 0.7. Values not shown in the figure: C16:0.29, C22:0.26, methyl stearate: 0.26, parahydrogen: 1.63, orthohydrogen: 1.61, hydrogen: 1.76, helium: 4.21, and deuterium (D2): 1.31. The names used in REFPROP 10.0 were adopted.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Values of λres+ as a function of s+/ξ of each group of pure fluids, where λres+ is the dimensionless residual thermal conductivity, s+ is the dimensionless residual entropy, and ξ is the scaling factor. The curves are calculated with the global ngk parameters. All groups are shown at the bottom; at the top, each group is individually illustrated but stacked by powers of 20 and with group number labeled.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Relative deviations of the experimental thermal conductivity λexp from values λRES calculated with the RES model. The short line indicates the average relative deviation; the shape shows the distribution of the relative deviation; and the colors are for a clear illustration only. Fluid-specific nk parameters are preferred, and only if they are not available in Table 3, global parameters ngk are used.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Influence of different mixing rules of for mmix on the prediction of thermal conductivity of mixtures, where xi represents the mole fraction, yi represents the mass fraction, and mi is the molecular mass for component i. Deviation represents the maximum deviation corresponding to the standard deviation of a normal distribution (≈68.2%) of the selected experiment data.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Statistical summary of the relative deviation of the experimental data from model calculations for binary mixtures. All selected data: all experimental data collected and passed the three filters; Further filtered data: experimental data further filtered so that they can be calculated with the REFPROP models. ARD and AARD: the average relative deviation and the average of the absolute value of relative deviation of the experimental values from the model calculations, respectively. Please note that the blank areas in the figure indicate either the absence of available data or the inability of REFPROP to perform calculations.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Relation between λres+ and s+ for mixtures that have more than 500 experimental data points: (a) heptane + isooctane, (116−119) (b) R125 + R134a, (102−104) (c) R32 + R134a, (103,104) (d) R125 + R32, (103,120−125) (e) ethanol + water, (89−101) (f) ethylene glycol + water, (97,105−115) (g) propane + R134a, (104) (h) propane + R32, (104) and (i) R32 + R125 + R134a. (103) Different colors and symbols represent experimental data from different sources. For specific literature information, please refer to SI-DPR.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Thermal conductivity experimental data and model prediction of some fluid mixtures with temperature close to the critical point, where pr = p/pc is the reduced pressure relative to critical pressure: (a) CO2 + ethane, (128) (b) CO2 + ethylene, (129) and (c) R125 + R143a. (121) The molar fraction of each component is indicated. The critical temperature and pressure were calculated with REFPROP 10.0.

  • References


    This article references 129 other publications.

    1. 1
      Li, H. L.; Dong, B. B.; Yu, Z. X.; Yan, J. Y.; Zhu, K. Thermo-physical properties of CO2 mixtures and their impacts on CO2 capture, transport and storage: Progress since 2011. Appl. Energy 2019, 255, 113789  DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113789
    2. 2
      Huber, M. L.; Lemmon, E. W.; Bell, I. H.; McLinden, M. O. The NIST REFPROP Database for Highly Accurate Properties of Industrially Important Fluids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022, 61 (42), 1544915472,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01427
    3. 3
      Li, J.; Peng, X.; Yang, Z.; Hu, S.; Duan, Y. Design, improvements and applications of dual-pressure evaporation organic Rankine cycles: A review. Appl. Energy 2022, 311, 118609  DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118609
    4. 4
      Wang, F. A.; Zhu, J. Q.; Chen, H. S.; Wang, W. C.; Jiang, Y. L. A new model of thermal conductivity for liquids. Chem. Eng. J. 2000, 78 (2–3), 187191,  DOI: 10.1016/S1385-8947(00)00152-2
    5. 5
      Kandiyoti, R.; Mclaughlin, E. Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Dense Hard Sphere Fluid Mixtures. Mol. Phys. 1969, 17 (6), 643653,  DOI: 10.1080/00268976900101521
    6. 6
      Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Pollak, S.; Schmidt, K. A. G. Friction Theory Model for Thermal Conductivity. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2021, 66 (11), 42154227,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.1c00400
    7. 7
      Jia, H.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X.; Gao, B. Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Model of HFOs and HFO/HFC Mixtures Based on Friction Theory. Int. J. Thermophys. 2023, 44 (5), 76,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-023-03189-z
    8. 8
      Huber, M. L. Models for Viscosity, Thermal Conductivity, and Surface Tension of Selected Pure Fluids as Implemented in REFPROP v10.0; NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) 8209; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 2018.
    9. 9
      McLinden, M. O.; Klein, S. A.; Perkins, R. A. An extended corresponding states model for the thermal conductivity of refrigerants and refrigerant mixtures. Int. J. Refrig. 2000, 23 (1), 4363,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-7007(99)00024-9
    10. 10
      Rosenfeld, Y. A quasi-universal scaling law for atomic transport in simple fluids. J. Phys.: Condens.Matter 1999, 11 (28), 54155427,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/11/28/303
    11. 11
      Gnan, N.; Schrøder, T. B.; Pedersen, U. R.; Bailey, N. P.; Dyre, J. C. Pressure-energy correlations in liquids. IV. ″Isomorphs″ in liquid phase diagrams. J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131 (23), 234504,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3265957
    12. 12
      Schrøder, T. B.; Gnan, N.; Pedersen, U. R.; Bailey, N. P.; Dyre, J. C. Pressure-energy correlations in liquids. V. Isomorphs in generalized Lennard-Jones systems. J. Chem. Phys. 2011, 134 (16), 164505,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3582900
    13. 13
      Bell, I. H. Probing the link between residual entropy and viscosity of molecular fluids and model potentials. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116 (10), 40704079,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815943116
    14. 14
      Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-I: A Case Study of Propane. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (6), 32033215,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00209
    15. 15
      Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-II: Predictive Scheme for Normal Alkanes. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (11), 56065616,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00749
    16. 16
      Bell, I. H.; Messerly, R.; Thol, M.; Costigliola, L.; Dyre, J. C. Modified Entropy Scaling of the Transport Properties of the Lennard-Jones Fluid. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123 (29), 63456363,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b05808
    17. 17
      Yang, X. X.; Xiao, X.; May, E. F.; Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Viscosity-III: Application to Refrigerants and Their Mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2021, 66 (3), 13851398,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c01009
    18. 18
      Al Ghafri, S. Z.; Akhfash, M.; Hughes, T. J.; Xiao, X.; Yang, X.; May, E. F. High pressure viscosity measurements of ternary (methane+ propane+ heptane) mixtures. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 223, 106984  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106984
    19. 19
      Kim, D.; Liu, H. T.; Yang, X. X.; Yang, F. F.; Morfitt, J.; Arami-Niya, A.; Ryu, M.; Duan, Y. Y.; May, E. F. Thermal conductivity measurements and correlations of pure R1243zf and binary mixtures of R32+R1243zf and R32+R1234yf Int. J. Refrig. 2021, 131, 990999,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2021.07.019
    20. 20
      Yang, X. X.; Hanzelmann, C.; Feja, S.; Trusler, J. P. M.; Richter, M. Thermophysical Property Modeling of Lubricant Oils and Their Mixtures with Refrigerants Using a Minimal Set of Experimental Data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (44), 1873618749,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02474
    21. 21
      Yang, X. X.; Liu, H. T.; Chen, S. H.; Kim, D.; Yang, F. F.; Arami-Niya, A.; Duan, Y. Y. Viscosity of binary refrigerant mixtures of R32+R1234yf and R32+R1243zf. Int. J. Refrig. 2021, 128, 197205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.11.020
    22. 22
      Yang, X.; Xiao, X.; Thol, M.; Richter, M.; Bell, I. A Residual Entropy Scaling Approach for Viscosity of Refrigerants, Other Fluids, and Their Mixtures. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Refrigeration; Paris, France, August 21–25, 2023.
    23. 23
      Liu, H.; Yang, F.; zhang, K.; Duan, Y.; Yang, Z. Residual Entropy Scaling Model for the Viscosity of Noble Gases. Gongcheng Rewuli Xuebao 2021, 42, 18
    24. 24
      Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, X. X.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Modeling the thermal conductivity of hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins and their binary mixtures using residual entropy scaling and cubic-plus-association equation of state. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 330, 115612  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2021.115612
    25. 25
      Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Modeling the viscosity of hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins and their binary mixtures using residual entropy scaling and cubic-plus-association equation of state. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 308, 113027  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113027
    26. 26
      Liu, H. T.; Yang, F. F.; Yang, Z.; Duan, Y. Y. Crossover residual entropy scaling of the viscosity and thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 368, 120799  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.120799
    27. 27
      Kang, K.; Gu, Y. X.; Wang, X. P. Assessment and development of the viscosity prediction capabilities of entropy scaling method coupled with a modified binary interaction parameter estimation model for refrigerant blends. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 358, 119184  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.119184
    28. 28
      Kang, K.; Li, X. L.; Gu, Y. X.; Wang, X. P. Thermal conductivity prediction of pure refrigerants and mixtures based on entropy-scaling concept. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 368, 120568  DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.120568
    29. 29
      Kang, K.; Yang, S.; Gu, Y.; Wang, X. Density and viscosity measurement of R513A and a modified residual entropy scaling model for predicting the viscosity of HFC/HFO refrigerants. Int. J. Refrig. 2024, 162, 204214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2024.04.008
    30. 30
      Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity of Real Substances from Excess Entropy Scaling Using PCP-SAFT. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56 (15), 45274538,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04289
    31. 31
      Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity from Entropy Scaling: A Group-Contribution Method. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (44), 2044120449,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04289
    32. 32
      Hopp, M.; Mele, J.; Hellmann, R.; Gross, J. Thermal Conductivity via Entropy Scaling: An Approach That Captures the Effect of Intramolecular Degrees of Freedom. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (39), 1843218438,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b03998
    33. 33
      Lötgering-Lin, O.; Fischer, M.; Hopp, M.; Gross, J. Pure Substance and Mixture Viscosities Based on Entropy Scaling and an Analytic Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57 (11), 40954114,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b04871
    34. 34
      Lötgering-Lin, O.; Gross, J. Group Contribution Method for Viscosities Based on Entropy Scaling Using the Perturbed-Chain Polar Statistical Associating Fluid Theory. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54 (32), 79427952,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01698
    35. 35
      Lötgering-Lin, O.; Schöniger, A.; Nowak, W.; Gross, J. Bayesian Model Selection Helps To Choose Objectively between Thermodynamic Models: A Demonstration of Selecting a Viscosity Model Based on Entropy Scaling. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55 (38), 1019110207,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b02671
    36. 36
      Sauer, E.; Stavrou, M.; Gross, J. Comparison between a Homo- and a Heterosegmented Group Contribution Approach Based on the Perturbed-Chain Polar Statistical Associating Fluid Theory Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (38), 1485414864,  DOI: 10.1021/ie502203w
    37. 37
      Vijande, J.; Piñeiro, M. M.; Bessières, D.; Saint-Guirons, H.; Legido, J. L. Description of PVT behaviour of hydrofluoroethers using the PC-SAFT EOS. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6 (4), 766770,  DOI: 10.1039/B312223A
    38. 38
      Dehlouz, A.; Jaubert, J. N.; Galliero, G.; Bonnissel, M.; Privat, R. Combining the entropy-scaling concept and cubic- or SAFT equations of state for modelling thermal conductivities of pure fluids. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2022, 196, 123286  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123286
    39. 39
      Rosenfeld, Y. Quasi-universal scaling law for atomic transport in simple fluids. J. Phys. IV 2000, 10 (P5), 129134,  DOI: 10.1051/jp4:2000517
    40. 40
      Le Guennec, Y.; Privat, R.; Jaubert, J.-N. Development of the translated-consistent tc-PR and tc-RK cubic equations of state for a safe and accurate prediction of volumetric, energetic and saturation properties of pure compounds in the sub-and super-critical domains. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2016, 429, 301312,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2016.09.003
    41. 41
      Moine, E.; Piña-Martinez, A.; Jaubert, J. N.; Sirjean, B.; Privat, R. I-PC-SAFT: An Industrialized Version of the Volume-Translated PC-SAFT Equation of State for Pure Components, Resulting from Experience Acquired All through the Years on the Parameterization of SAFT-Type and Cubic Models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58 (45), 2081520827,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04660
    42. 42
      Yang, F. F.; Liu, Q.; Duan, Y. Y.; Yang, Z. Crossover multiparameter equation of state: General procedure and demonstration with carbon dioxide. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2019, 494, 161171,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2019.04.035
    43. 43
      Fouad, W. A. Thermal Conductivity of Pure Fluids and Multicomponent Mixtures Using Residual Entropy Scaling with PC-SAFT-Application to Refrigerant Blends. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65 (12), 56885697,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00682
    44. 44
      Gross, J.; Sadowski, G. Perturbed-chain SAFT: An equation of state based on a perturbation theory for chain molecules. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40 (4), 12441260,  DOI: 10.1021/ie0003887
    45. 45
      Yang, F. F.; Chu, Q. F.; Liu, Q.; Duan, Y. Y.; Yang, Z. The cubic-plus-association equation of state for hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, and their binary mixtures. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 209, 115182  DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2019.115182
    46. 46
      Rokni, H. B.; Moore, J. D.; Gavaises, M. Entropy-scaling based pseudo-component viscosity and thermal conductivity models for hydrocarbon mixtures and fuels containing iso-alkanes and two-ring saturates. Fuel 2021, 283, 118877  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118877
    47. 47
      Rokni, H. B.; Moore, J. D.; Gupta, A.; McHugh, M. A.; Mallepally, R. R.; Gavaises, M. General method for prediction of thermal conductivity for well-characterized hydrocarbon mixtures and fuels up to extreme conditions using entropy scaling. Fuel 2019, 245, 594604,  DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.044
    48. 48
      Yang, X. X.; Kim, D. C.; May, E. F.; Bell, I. H. Entropy Scaling of Thermal Conductivity: Application to Refrigerants and Their Mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60 (35), 1305213070,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c02154
    49. 49
      Yang, X.; Xiao, X.; Thol, M.; Richter, M.; Bell, I. H. Linking Viscosity to Equations of State Using Residual Entropy Scaling Theory. Int. J. Thermophys. 2022, 43 (12), 183,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-022-03096-9
    50. 50
      Lemmon, E. W.; Bell, I. H.; Huber, M.; McLinden, M. NIST standard reference database 23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP, Version 10.0. In Natl. Stand. Ref. Data Ser.; (NIST NSRDS); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 2018.
    51. 51
      Olchowy, G. A.; Sengers, J. V. A Simplified Representation for the Thermal-Conductivity of Fluids in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10 (2), 417426,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01133538
    52. 52
      Frenkel, M.; Chirico, R. D.; Diky, V.; Yan, X.; Dong, Q.; Muzny, C. ThermoData Engine (TDE): software implementation of the dynamic data evaluation concept. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2005, 45 (4), 816838,  DOI: 10.1021/ci050067b
    53. 53
      Yang, X.; Richter, M. OilMixProp 1.0: Package for thermophysical properties of oils, common fluids and their mixtures. In International Conference on Screw Machines 2024, September 3–5, Germany, Dortmund.
    54. 54
      Bell, I. H.; Wronski, J.; Quoilin, S.; Lemort, V. Pure and Pseudo-pure Fluid Thermophysical Property Evaluation and the Open-Source Thermophysical Property Library CoolProp. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53 (6), 24982508,  DOI: 10.1021/ie4033999
    55. 55
      Bell, I. H.; Quoilin, S.; Wronski, J.; Lemort, V. CoolProp: An Open-Source Reference-Quality Thermophysical Property Library. In ASME ORC 2nd International Seminar on ORC Power Systems; DTU Library: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
    56. 56
      Wilke, C. R. A Viscosity Equation for Gas Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 1950, 18 (4), 517519,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1747673
    57. 57
      Chichester, J.; Huber, M. L. Documentation and Assessment of the Transport Property Model for Mixtures Implemented in NIST REFPROP, Version 8.0; National Institute of Standards and Technology:: Gaithersburg, MD, 2008.
    58. 58
      Golubev, I. F.; Sokolova, V. P. Thermal Conductivity of Ammonia at Various Temperatures and Pressures. Teploenergetika 1964, 11 (9), 6467
    59. 59
      Gutweiler, J.; Raw, C. J. G. Transport Properties of Polar Gas Mixtures II. Heat Conductivities of Ammonia-Methylamine Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 1968, 48, 24132415,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1669462
    60. 60
      Richter, G. N.; Sage, B. H. Thermal Conductivity of Fluids. Ammonia. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1964, 9, 7578,  DOI: 10.1021/je60020a022
    61. 61
      Senftleben, H. New values of thermal conductivity and specific heat at different temperatures for a series of gases. Z. Angew. Phys. 1964, 17, 8687
    62. 62
      Shamsetdinov, F. N.; Zaripov, Z. I.; Abdulagatov, I. M.; Huber, M. L.; Gumerov, F. M.; Gabitov, F. R.; Kazakov, A. F. Experimental study of the thermal conductivity of ammonia D water refrigerant mixtures at temperatures from 278 to 356 K and at pressures up to 20 MPa. Int. J. Refrig. 2013, 36, 13471368,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.02.008
    63. 63
      Varlashkin, P. G.; Thompson, J. C. Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Ammonia. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1963, 8, 526526,  DOI: 10.1021/je60019a014
    64. 64
      Assael, M. J.; Karagiannidis, E. Measurements of the Thermal-Conductivity of R22, R123, and R134a in the Temperature-Range 250–340-K at Pressures up to 30 MPa. Int. J. Thermophys. 1993, 14 (2), 183197,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00507807
    65. 65
      Chaikovskiy, V. F.; Geller, V. Z.; Gorykin, S. F.; Artamonov, S. D.; Bondar, G. E.; Ivanchenko, S. I.; Lenskiy, L. R.; Peredriy, V. G. Comprehensive Investigation of the Thermophysical Properties of Most Important and Promising Refrigerants in Liquid and Gaseous Phase. Teplofiz. Svoistva Zhidk., Collect. Vol. 1976, 108117
    66. 66
      Cherneeva, L. I. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Freon-22. Kholod. Tekhn. 1953, 30, 6063
    67. 67
      Cherneeva, L. I. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Freons. Kholod. Tekhn. 1955, 32, 2324
    68. 68
      Fellows, B. R.; Richard, R. G.; Shankland, I. R. Thermal Conductivity Data for Some Environmentally Acceptable Fluorocarbons. Therm. Conduct. 1990, 21, 311325
    69. 69
      Geller, V. Z.; Ivanchenko, S. I.; Peredriy, V. G. Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Coefficients of Difluorudichloromethane. Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Neft Gaz 1973, 6165
    70. 70
      Hammerschmidt, U. Thermal-Conductivity of a Wide-Range of Alternative Refrigerants Measured with an Improved Guarded Hot-Plate Apparatus. Int. J. Thermophys. 1995, 16 (5), 12031211,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02081288
    71. 71
      Kim, S. H.; Kim, D. S.; Kim, M. S.; Ro, S. T. The Thermal-Conductivity of R22, R142b, R152a, and Their Mixtures in the Liquid-State. Int. J. Thermophys. 1993, 14 (4), 937950,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00502116
    72. 72
      Le Neindre, B.; Garrabos, Y.; Sabirzianov, A.; Goumerov, F. Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity of Chlorodifluoromethane in the Temperature Range of 300K to 515K and at Pressures up to 55 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2001, 46, 193201,  DOI: 10.1021/je0002078
    73. 73
      Makita, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Morimoto, Y.; Noguchi, M.; Kubota, H. Thermal Conductivity of Gaseous Fluorocarbon Refrigerants R 12, R13, and R 23, Under Pressure. Int. J. Thermophys. 1981, 2, 249268,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00504188
    74. 74
      Potapov, M. D. The Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Binary Mixtures of Halogenated Hydrocarbons. Ph. D. Thesis, Odessa Technological Institute of Food Industry: Odessa, USSR, 1988.
    75. 75
      Sadyikov, A. K. Experimental Investigation of Some Thermophysical Properties of Polyoxy Compounds; Kazan Technical Institute for Refrigeration: Kazan, USSR, 1978.
    76. 76
      Shestova, A. I. The Investigation of Thermal Conductivity of Freons of the Methane Type; Institute of Theoretical Physics: Novosibirsk, USSR, 1977.
    77. 77
      Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivities of Freons and Their Binary Mixtures. In Proc Eighth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties; ASME: New York, 1982.
    78. 78
      Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptyev, Y. A. Thermal-Conductivity of Difluoromonochloromethane in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 1991, 12 (1), 5365,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00506122
    79. 79
      Tsvetkov, O. B.; Laptev, Y. A.; Asambaev, A. G. The thermal conductivity of binary mixtures of liquid R22 with R142b and R152a at low temperatures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1996, 17 (3), 597606,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01441506
    80. 80
      Zaporozhan, G. V. Investigation of the Thermal Conductivity of Some Freons at Low Temperatures; Grozny Petroleum Institute: Grozny, USSR, 1978.
    81. 81
      Jäger, A.; Steinberg, L.; Mickoleit, E.; Thol, M. Residual entropy scaling for long-chain linear alkanes and isomers of alkanes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62 (8), 37673791,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04238
    82. 82
      Mickoleit, E.; Jäger, A.; Turuelo, C. G.; Thol, M.; Bell, I. H.; Breitkopf, C. Group Contribution Method for the Residual Entropy Scaling Model for Viscosities of Branched Alkanes. Int. J. Thermophys. 2023, 44 (12), 176,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-023-03289-w
    83. 83
      Bell, I. H.; Leachman, J. W.; Rigosi, A. F.; Hill, H. M. Quantum Entropic Effects in the Liquid Viscosities of Hydrogen, Deuterium, and Neon. Phys. Fluids 2023, 35 (8), 081703  DOI: 10.1063/5.0164037
    84. 84
      Kravchun, S. N. Thermal-Conductivity of Binary-Liquid Systems. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1986, 60 (9), 21762179
    85. 85
      Naziev, Y. M.; Gumbatov, A. M.; Akhmedov, A. K.; Abasov, A. A.; Abasov, R. A. Experimental study of thermal conductivity of liquid binary cyclohexane-n-decane mixtures at high pressures. Izv. Vyssh. Uchebdn. Zaved. 1985, 28, 57
    86. 86
      Archer, C. T. Thermal Conduction in Hydrogen-Deuterium Mixtures. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 1938, 165, 474485,  DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0072
    87. 87
      Minter, C.; Schuldiner, S. Thermal Conductivity of Equilibrated Mixtures of H2’, D2’, and HD. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1959, 4 (3), 223226,  DOI: 10.1021/je60003a010
    88. 88
      Saxena, S. C.; Tondon, P. K. Experimental Data and Procedures for Predicting Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Nonpolar Gases. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1971, 16 (2), 212220,  DOI: 10.1021/je60049a032
    89. 89
      Bates, O. K.; Hazzard, G.; Palmer, G. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1938, 10, 314318,  DOI: 10.1021/ac50122a006
    90. 90
      Filippov, L. P. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 3: Fiz. Astr. 1960, 15, 43- 50 DOI:.
    91. 91
      Gillam, D. G.; Lamm, O. Certain Liquids using the Hot Wire Method. Acta Chem. Scand. 1955, 9, 657660
    92. 92
      Henneberg, H. Ueber das wärmeleitungsvermögen der mischungen von aethylalkohol und wasser; Druck C. Gerold's sohn: 1888.
    93. 93
      Lees, C. H. X. On the Thermal Conductivities of Single and Mixed Solids and Liquids and Their Variation with Temperature. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 1898, 191, 339440,  DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1898.0010
    94. 94
      Loewen, J. A.; Popov, V. N.; Malov, B. A. Comparative Theories of Social Change ; 1969, 87- 89. DOI:  DOI: 10.1177/009182966901600205 .
    95. 95
      Popov, V. N.; Malov, B. A. Teploenergetika 1971, 18, 88- 90DOI:  DOI: 10.1093/nq/18-3-88 .
    96. 96
      Qun-Fang, L.; Ruisen, L.; Dan-Yan, N.; Yu-Chun, H. Thermal Conductivities of Some Organic Solvents and Their Binary Mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1997, 42 (5), 971974,  DOI: 10.1021/je960351m
    97. 97
      Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Aqueous Solutions of Organic Liquids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1966, 40, 869871
    98. 98
      Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Nonelectrolytes. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1967, 41 (11), 29012907
    99. 99
      Riedel, L. Chem.-Ing.-Technol. 1951, 23, 465,  DOI: 10.1002/cite.330231902
    100. 100
      Tsederberg, N. V. Teploenergetika 1956, 3, 42- 48
    101. 101
      Zhou, J. C.; Che, Y. Y.; Wu, K. J.; Shen, J.; He, C. H. Thermal Conductivity of DMSO + C2H5OH, DMSO + H2O, and DMSO + C2H5OH + H2O Mixtures at T = (278.15 to 338.15) K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2013, 58, 663670,  DOI: 10.1021/je301171y
    102. 102
      Jeong, S. U.; Kim, M. S.; Ro, S. T. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Pentafluoroethane (R125) and 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R134a). Int. J. Thermophys. 1999, 20, 5562,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021469928377
    103. 103
      Kim, D.; Yang, X. X.; Arami-Niya, A.; Rowland, D.; Xiao, X.; Al Ghafri, S. Z. S.; Tsuji, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Seiki, Y.; May, E. F. Thermal Conductivity Measurements of Refrigerant Mixtures Containing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a), Hydrofluoroolefins (HFO-1234yf), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2020, 151, 106248  DOI: 10.1016/j.jct.2020.106248
    104. 104
      Perkins, R.; Schwarzberg, E.; Gao, X. Experimental Thermal Conductivity Values for Mixtures of R32, R125, R134a, and Propane; NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.
    105. 105
      Assael, M. J.; Charitidou, E.; Avgoustiniatos, S.; Wakeham, W. A. Absolute Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Alkene-Glycols with Water. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10, 11271140,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00500567
    106. 106
      Bates, O. K.; Hazzard, G. Thermal Conductivity of Alcohols and Glycols. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1945, 37, 193195,  DOI: 10.1021/ie50422a021
    107. 107
      Bogacheva, I. S.; Zemdikhanov, K. B.; Mukhamedzyanov, G. K.; Sadykov, A. K.; Usmanov, A. G. Heat Conductivity of Mixtures of Organic Liquids. Zh. Fiz. Khim 1980, 54, 14681470
    108. 108
      Bohne, D.; Fischer, S.; Obermeier, E. Thermal Conductivity, Density, Viscosity, and Prandtl Numbers of Ethylene Glycol-Water Mixtures. Ber. Bunsen-Ges. Phys. Chem. 1984, 88, 739742,  DOI: 10.1002/bbpc.19840880813
    109. 109
      Ganiev, Y. A.; Rastorgu, Y. L. Thermal Conductivity of Mixed Non-Electrolyte Solutions. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1968, 42, 68
    110. 110
      Grigrev, A. Thermal Conductivity: Water and Water-Organic Systems. Sov. Un. Gov. Bur. Stand., Grozny Oil Inst., Infor. Seri 1985.
    111. 111
      Rastorguev, Y. L.; Ganiev, Y. A. Thermal Conductivity of Organic Liquids. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 1967, 41, 1352
    112. 112
      Riedel, L. Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Several Organic Compounds with Water. Chem.-Ing.-Technol. 1951, 23, 465,  DOI: 10.1002/cite.330231902
    113. 113
      Sun, T.; Teja, A. S. Density, Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of Aqueous Ethylene, Diethylene and Triethylene Glycol Mixtures between 290 and 450 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2003, 48, 198202,  DOI: 10.1021/je025610o
    114. 114
      Usmanov, I. U.; Salikhov, A. S. The Concentration Variation of the Thermal Conductivities of Certain Aqueous Solutions of Organic Liquids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 1977, 51, 14881489
    115. 115
      Vanderkooi, W. N.; Hildenbrand, D. L.; Stull, D. R. Liquid Thermal Conductivities: The Apparatus, Values for Several Glycols and Their Aqueous Solutions, and Five High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Eng. Data 1967, 12, 377379,  DOI: 10.1021/je60034a023
    116. 116
      Fareleira, J. M. N. A.; Li, S. F. Y.; Wakeham, W. A. The Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Mixtures at Elevated Pressures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1989, 10, 10411051,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00503172
    117. 117
      Naziev, D. Y.; Aliev, A. M. Research of Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of n-Heptane-Isooctane at High Parameters of State. Teplofiz. Vys. Temp. 1992, 30, 294298
    118. 118
      Wakeham, W. A.; Yu, H. R.; Zalaf, M. The Thermal Conductivity of the Mixtures of Liquid Hydrocarbons at Pressures up to 400 MPa. Int. J. Thermophys. 1990, 11, 9871000,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00500554
    119. 119
      Yu, H. The Measurement of the Thermal Conductivity for Liquid with the Transient Hot-Wire Instrument. Beijing Shiyou Huagong Xueyuan Xuebao 1993, 1, 2936
    120. 120
      Gao, X.; Nagasaka, Y.; Nagashima, A. Thermal Conductivity of Binary Refrigerant Mixtures of HFC-32/125 and HFC-32/134a in the Liquid Phase. Int. J. Thermophys. 1999, 20, 14031415,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021432920199
    121. 121
      Geller, V. Z.; Nemzer, B. V.; Cheremnykh, U. V. Thermal Conductivity of the Refrigerant Mixtures R404A, R407C, R410A, and R507A. Int. J. Thermophys. 2001, 22, 10351043,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1010691504352
    122. 122
      Matsuo, S.; Tanaka, Y. Measurements of Transport Properties and Their Problems. Rev. High Press. Sci. Technol. 1994, 3 (4), 346353,  DOI: 10.4131/jshpreview.3.346
    123. 123
      Ro, S. T.; Kim, M. S.; Jeong, S. U. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of Binary Mixtures of Difluoromethane (R32) and Pentafluoroethane (R125). Int. J. Thermophys. 1997, 18, 991999,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02575243
    124. 124
      Tanaka, Y.; Matsuo, S.; Taya, S. Gaseous Thermal Conductivity of Difluoromethane (HFC-32), Pentafluoroethane (HFC-125), and Their Mixtures. Int. J. Thermophys. 1995, 16, 121131,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01438963
    125. 125
      Tomimura, T.; Maki, S.; Zhang, X.; Fujii, M. Measurements of Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of Alternative Refrigerants in Liquid Phase with a Transient Short-Hot-Wire Method. Jpn. J. Thermophys. Prop. 2001, 15, 914,  DOI: 10.2963/jjtp.15.9
    126. 126
      Marsh, K. N.; Perkins, R. A.; Ramires, M. L. V. Measurement and Correlation of the Thermal Conductivity of Propane from 86 to 600 K at Pressures to 70 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2002, 47 (4), 932940,  DOI: 10.1021/je010001m
    127. 127
      Huber, M. L.; Sykioti, E. A.; Assael, M. J.; Perkins, R. A. Reference Correlation of the Thermal Conductivity of Carbon Dioxide from the Triple Point to 1100 K and up to 200 MPa. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 2016, 45 (1), 013102  DOI: 10.1063/1.4940892
    128. 128
      Mostert, R.; Sengers, J. V. Thermal Conductivity of Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Ethane in the Critical Region. Int. J. Thermophys. 2008, 29 (4), 12051221,  DOI: 10.1007/s10765-008-0482-1
    129. 129
      Junk, W. A.; Comings, E. W. Thermal Conductivity of Gas Mixtures at High Pressure: Ethylene-Nitrogen and Ethylene-Carbon Dioxide. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1953, 49, 263266
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c02946.

    • Tables of dilute gas calculation parameters of pure fluids; of reference equation of state and the recommended thermal conductivity model in REFPROP 10.0; of names, group, and constants of pure fluids; for statistics of the experimental data of pure fluids; for statistics of the experimental data of fluid mixtures; for sample thermal conductivity calculations of pure substances with the recommended models in REFPROP 10.0 and the RES model; for sample thermal conductivity calculations of binaries with the recommended models in REFPROP 10.0 and the RES model; and for thermal conductivity as a function of residual entropy for each group and figures for relative deviation from experimental data of pure fluids to model predictions and relative deviation from experimental data of fluid mixtures to model predictions (PDF)

    • Python package for residual entropy scaling model calculation (ZIP)

    • Detailed plots and references of all collected experimental data (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.