Addition/Correction pubs.acs.org/jced
Correction to “Measurement and Correlation of 1,4-Naphthoquinone and of Plumbagin Solubilities in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide” Sofia Marceneiro, Mara E. M. Braga, Ana M.A. Dias,* and Hermínio C. de Sousa* CIEPQPF, Chemical Engineering Department, University of Coimbra, Rua Sílvio Lima, Pólo II-Pinhal de Marrocos, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal
J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 4173−4182. DOI: 10.1021/je200675g
R
solubility of 1,4-naphthoquinone and of plumbagin in supercritical carbon dioxide. Please note that the experimental data was correctly measured and the solubility values expressed in terms of mole fraction are all correct. Unfortunately there was an error in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the calculation of the
ecently, Prof. José Del Valle (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) brought to the authors’ attention some incoherencies in some of the solubility data reported is this work. Authors have revised the data and regret to inform that they noticed a miscalculation in some of the reported values for the
Table 1. Experimental Solubilities of 1,4-Naphthoquinone and of Plumbagin in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide T 1,4-naphthoquinone
K
MPa
308.2
9.1 ± 0.04 12.4 ± 0.02 15.2 ± 0.01 18.3 ± 0.06 21.2 ± 0.08 24.0 ± 0.05 9.2 ± 0.01 12.2 ± 0.03 15.1 ± 0.11 18.5 ± 0.02 21.2 ± 0.03 24.2 ± 0.03 9.2 ± 0.01 12.2 ± 0.02 15.1 ± 0.01 18.5 ± 0.01 21.2 ± 0.02 24.1 ± 0.01 9.1 ± 0.05 12.3 ± 0.05 15.2 ± 0.01 18.0 ± 0.05 21.2 ± 0.08 24.3 ± 0.04 9.1 ± 0.14 12.1 ± 0.17 15.2 ± 0.49 18.0 ± 0.52 21.2 ± 0.55 23.9 ± 0.29 9.2 ± 0.02 12.2 ± 0.07 15.0 ± 0.03 18.4 ± 0.02 21.2 ± 0.02 24.0 ± 0.02
318.2
328.2
plumbagin
P
308.2
318.2
328.2
ρ kg·m
y −3
669.25 774.37 817.20 850.56 875.33 894.93 361.58 666.47 743.88 795.02 824.58 851.13 267.80 515.81 659.13 725.52 771.08 802.32 670.37 771.97 816.59 848.04 875.46 896.47 351.62 662.08 745.12 789.42 824.45 848.50 267.52 517.51 652.39 728.92 770.69 801.00
×10
S 3
0.96 ± 0.018 1.80 ± 0.053 2.32 ± 0.031 2.86 ± 0.058 3.21 ± 0.041 3.50 ± 0.071 0.14 ± 0.012 1.06 ± 0.042 2.01 ± 0.039 3.00 ± 0.026 3.67 ± 0.038 4.26 ± 0.050 0.05 ± 0.003 0.78 ± 0.038 1.86 ± 0.048 3.11 ± 0.039 4.28 ± 0.071 4.93 ± 0.030 1.25 ± 0.012 2.41 ± 0.058 3.12 ± 0.108 3.80 ± 0.133 4.55 ± 0.121 5.04 ± 0.121 0.12 ± 0.008 1.82 ± 0.085 3.40 ± 0.025 4.68 ± 0.058 5.98 ± 0.011 6.95 ± 0.087 0.05 ± 0.006 1.61 ± 0.040 3.66 ± 0.078 5.80 ± 0.059 7.39 ± 0.032 9.00 ± 0.072
kg·m‑3 2.31 ± 0.035 5.02 ± 0.148 6.83 ± 0.091 8.76 ± 0.179 10.14 ± 0.124 11.29 ± 0.234 0.19 ± 0.02 2.54 ± 0.10 5.37 ± 0.09 8.60 ± 0.07 10.92 ± 0.11 13.08 ± 0.16 0.05 ± 0.01 1.44 ± 0.07 4.42 ± 0.11 8.12 ± 0.10 11.91 ± 0.20 14.28 ± 0.09 3.58 ± 0.049 7.99 ± 0.185 11.18 ± 0.373 13.85 ± 0.494 17.11 ± 0.461 19.43 ± 0.469 0.18 ± 0.01 5.14 ± 0.21 10.85 ± 0.07 15.86 ± 0.20 21.22 ± 0.05 25.40 ± 0.33 0.06 ± 0.01 3.57 ± 0.06 10.25 ± 0.23 18.20 ± 0.21 24.54 ± 0.10 31.11 ± 0.25
Published: January 24, 2017 © 2017 American Chemical Society
886
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00025 J. Chem. Eng. Data 2017, 62, 886−887
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Addition/Correction
solubility in terms of mass of compound/volume of CO2 (S, kg/m3) at 318.2 K and 328.2 K. As a consequence, results presented in Table 3 and Figure 3, which result from the correlation of the incorrect experimental data, should also be corrected. This corrigendum presents the corrected experimental data in Table 1 and the corrected correlation results obtained with the Chrastil model in Table 3 and Figure 3. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused and would like to acknowledge Prof. José Del Valle (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) for bringing this fact to our attention. (Change No. 1) Table 1: Solubility data (S, kg/m3) measured at 318.2 K and 328.2 K were recalculated and corrected. (Change No. 2) Table 3: Correlation results obtained with the Chrastil model were recalculated and corrected. (Change No. 3) Figure 3: New correlated results are reported for each isotherm. (Change No. 4) Minor changes were made through the text in order to correct the new AARD values obtained from the Chrastil model: 4.1. Line 10 in the abstract: “Best results were obtained with the Chrastil model: 5.5% and 7.8%, for plumbagin and 1,4-naphthoquinone, respectively.” 4.2. Line 14 in the conclusions: “Best results were obtained with the Chrastil model: 5.5% and 7.8%, for plumbagin and 1,4-naphthoquinone, respectively.”
Table 3. Experimental Solubility Correlation Results for 1,4-Naphthoquinone and Plumbagin, Obtained with the Three Density-Based Models (Chrastil, Bartle, and Méndez-Santiago-Teja) 1,4-Naphthoquinone Chrastil Model k 5.05 α (K) −3873.57 β −19.38 ΔH (kJ mol−1) −32.2 AARD (%) 7.8 N 18 Bartle Model a1 26.16 a2 (K) −6586.7 C (m3·kg−1) 0.0097 ΔHsub (kJ mol−1) 54.8 AARD (%) 10.1 N 18 Méndez-Santiago-Teja Model A′ (K) −8853.9 B′ (K·m3·kg−1) 3.1 C′ 19.5 AARD (%) 10.8 N 18
Plumbagin 5.66 −5923.25 −16.33 −49.3 5.5 18 32.65 −8525.1 0.010 70.9 10.5 18 −11201.1 3.4 26.6 10.3 18
Figure 3. Logarithmic relationship between the solubility of (a) 1,4-naphthoquinone and of (b) plumbagin in scCO2 (S, kg·m−3) and the density of the pure scCO2 (ρ, kg·m−3). Experimental: (●) 308.2 K; (□) 318.2 K; (▲) 328.2 K; () correlated by the Chrastil model (eq 1).
887
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jced.7b00025 J. Chem. Eng. Data 2017, 62, 886−887
