2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2017.05.127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of glucose/lactose on the solution thermodynamics of thiamine hydrochloride in aqueous solutions at different temperatures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Density values used for the solution of cosolutes, i.e., aqueous 0.06 mol·kg –1 dextrose, were found to be well in agreement with those from the studies of Banipal et al and Rani et al . We have also compared our data of densities of aqueous 0.06 mol·kg –1 urea with the literature values from Krakowiak and Makarov et al In the case of the 0.06 mol·kg –1 aqueous dextrose solution, obtained experimental values (1.00329, 1.00119, and 0.99811 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K agree well with the values observed (1.00324, 1.00112, and 0.99809 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K by Banipal et al and also (1.00125 and 0.99820 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 298.15 and 308.15 K by Rani et al We have also compared our data of density of 0.06 mol·kg –1 aqueous urea solutions with the data of Krakowiak and Makarov et al The obtained values of density (1.00008, 0.99791, and 0.99498 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K agree well with those from the studies by Krakowiak (1.00007, 0.99800, and 0.99496 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) and Makarov et al (1.00008, 0.99799, and 0.99498 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ). The graphical comparison of experimental and literature values for 0.06 mol·kg –1 dextrose and 0.06 mol·kg –1 urea is given in the Supporting Information as Figures S1 and S2.…”
Section: Results and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Density values used for the solution of cosolutes, i.e., aqueous 0.06 mol·kg –1 dextrose, were found to be well in agreement with those from the studies of Banipal et al and Rani et al . We have also compared our data of densities of aqueous 0.06 mol·kg –1 urea with the literature values from Krakowiak and Makarov et al In the case of the 0.06 mol·kg –1 aqueous dextrose solution, obtained experimental values (1.00329, 1.00119, and 0.99811 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K agree well with the values observed (1.00324, 1.00112, and 0.99809 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K by Banipal et al and also (1.00125 and 0.99820 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 298.15 and 308.15 K by Rani et al We have also compared our data of density of 0.06 mol·kg –1 aqueous urea solutions with the data of Krakowiak and Makarov et al The obtained values of density (1.00008, 0.99791, and 0.99498 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) at T = 288.15, 298.15, and 308.15 K agree well with those from the studies by Krakowiak (1.00007, 0.99800, and 0.99496 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ) and Makarov et al (1.00008, 0.99799, and 0.99498 × 10 3 kg·m –3 ). The graphical comparison of experimental and literature values for 0.06 mol·kg –1 dextrose and 0.06 mol·kg –1 urea is given in the Supporting Information as Figures S1 and S2.…”
Section: Results and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The variation of density as a function of molality for an aqueous solution of creatinine is reported in Figure 1. Density values used for the solution of cosolutes, i.e., aqueous 0.06 mol•kg −1 dextrose, were found to be well in agreement with those from the studies of Banipal et al 18 and Rani et al 19 We have also compared our data of densities of aqueous 0.06 mol•kg −1 urea with the literature values from Krakowiak 20 and Makarov et al 21 In the case of the 0.06 mol 18 and also (1.00125 and 0.99820 × 10 3 kg•m −3 ) at T = 298.15 and 308.15 K by Rani et al 19 We have also compared our data of density of 0.06 mol•kg −1 aqueous urea solutions with the data of Krakowiak 20 and Makarov et al 21 The obtained values of density 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The limiting apparent molar volume of solute, limiting apparent molar expansivity, thermal expansion coefficient, and second derivative of limiting apparent molar volume have been derived and reported in the Supporting Information.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…In the present work, the positive values of E ϕ ° are because of the process of packing or caging effect. Furthermore, the positive values indicate interactions between solutes and solvents. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The viscosities (η) of polyhydroxy solutes in water show good agreement with the literature values (reported earlier). The present values of viscosities (η) for binary (water + thiamine HCl/pyridoxine HCl) and ternary (water + polyhydroxy solutes + thiamine HCl/pyridoxine HCl) systems have been compared with the literature values ,, and are given as a part of the Supporting Information in Figures S2 and S3. The viscosity data of thiamine HCl and pyridoxine HCl in water show good agreement with the literature ,,, data (Figure S2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present values of viscosities (η) for binary (water + thiamine HCl/pyridoxine HCl) and ternary (water + polyhydroxy solutes + thiamine HCl/pyridoxine HCl) systems have been compared with the literature values ,, and are given as a part of the Supporting Information in Figures S2 and S3. The viscosity data of thiamine HCl and pyridoxine HCl in water show good agreement with the literature ,,, data (Figure S2). Xu et al have reported the viscosities for the ternary system consisting of 0.2000–1.0006 mol·kg –1 of xylitol in 0.1000–0.4000 mol·kg –1 pyridoxine HCl (aq) over the temperature range from 293.15 to 323.15 K. The qualitative comparison with the current studied 0.0404–0.1398 mol·kg –1 xylitol in 0.0500–0.3500 mol·kg –1 pyridoxine HCl (aq) at T = 288.15–318.15 K shows that the variation of η values with respect to concentration and temperature reported by Xu et al is comparable with the present η values (Figure S3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%