Excess molar volumes, excess isentropic compressibilities, excess viscosities, relative permittivity and molar polarization deviations for methyl acetate+, ethyl acetate+, butyl acetate+, isoamyl acetate+, methyl propionate+, ethyl propionate+, ethyl butyrate+, methyl methacrylate+, ethyl methacrylate+, and butyl methacrylate+cyclohexane at T=298.15 and 303.15K

Sastry, Nandhibatla V.; Patel, Shweta; Soni, Saurabh S.

doi:10.1016/j.molliq.2013.04.015

Cited by 81 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The maximum ionic conductivity achieved for each solvent is presented in Figure 2a together with the viscosity and dielectric constant for the salt-free solvents, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] while the Dielectric constant and viscosity for salt-free solvents, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] compared with the maximum achieved ionic conductivity at room temperature for all the tested solvents (a). The ionic conductivity as a function of the NaPF 6 concentration in molal for all the tested solvents (b).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Attempt to Formulate Non‐Carbonate Electrolytes for Sodium‐Ion Batteries

Mogensen

Colbin

Younesi

2021

Batteries & Supercaps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non‐aqueous carbonate solvents have been the main choice for the development of lithium‐ion batteries, and similarly most research on sodium‐ion batteries have been performed using carbonate‐based solvents. However, the differences between sodium and lithium batteries – in term chemistry/electrochemistry properties as well as electrode materials used – open up opportunities to have a new look at solvents that have attracted little attention as electrolyte solvent. This work investigates properties of a wide range of different solvent classes in the context of sodium‐ion battery electrolytes and compares them to the performance of propylene carbonate. The thirteen solvents studied here include one or several members of glymes, carbonates, lactones, esters, pyrrolidones, sulfones, and alkyl phosphates. Out of those, five outperforming solvents of γ‐butyrolactone (GBL), γ‐valerolactone (GVL), N‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (NMP), propylene carbonate (PC), and trimethyl phosphate (TMP) were further investigated using additives of ethylene sulfite (ES), vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), prop‐1‐ene‐1,3‐sultone (PES), sulfolane (TMS), tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (TTSPI), and sodium bis(oxalato)borate (NaBOB). The solvents TMS and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME) were tested in 1 : 1 mixtures by volume with the co‐solvents; NMP, dimethoxyethane (DME), and TMP. All electrolytes used NaPF6 as the salt. Primary evaluation relied on electrochemical cycling of full‐cell sodium‐ion batteries consisting of Prussian white cathodes and hard‐carbon anodes. Galvanostatic cycling was performed using both two‐ and three‐electrode cells, in addition, cyclic and linear sweep voltammetry was used to further evaluate the electrolyte formulations. Moreover, the resistance was measured on the anode and cathode, using Intermittent current interruption (ICI) technique.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 2. Dielectric constant and viscosity for salt-free solvents,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] compared with the maximum achieved ionic conductivity at room temperature for all the tested solvents (a). The ionic conductivity as a function of the NaPF 6 concentration in molal for all the tested solvents (b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Attempt to Formulate Non‐Carbonate Electrolytes for Sodium‐Ion Batteries

Mogensen

Colbin

Younesi

2021

Batteries & Supercaps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For mixing properties, the estimated uncertainties are 6•10 -8 m 3 mol -1 for excess molar volume, 0.46 % for viscosity deviation, 8.6•10 −4 for refractive index deviation and 0.96•10 −12 Pa -1 for excess isentropic compressibility. [6], () [7], () [8], () [9], () [10], () [11], () [12], () [13], () [14], () [15], () [16], () [17], () [18], () [19], () [20], () [21], () [22], () [23], () [24], () [25], () [26], () [27], () [28], () [29], () [30], () [31], () [32], () [33], () [34], () [35], () [36], () [37], () [38], () [39], () [40], () [41], () [42], () [43]. The lines are a guide to the eye.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of thermophysical properties of binary systems containing ethyl acetate and 1-propanol or 1-butanol

Majstorović

Mirković

Kijevčanin

et al. 2020

Hem Ind

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research is the experimental determination of density, viscosity, refractive index and speed of sound for binary mixtures of the ester ethyl acetate and alcohols. Experimental measurements were carried out for two systems with 1-propanol and 1-butanol at atmospheric pressure and in a temperature range 288.15 - 323.15 K. Results of experimental measurements were further used to determine excess molar volumes, viscosity deviations, refractive index deviations, and excess isentropic compressibility for each investigated mixture. These calculated data were correlated using the empirical Redlich-Kister equation. Positive values of the excess molar volume and isentropic compressibility appear for both analysed systems, while values of viscosity and refractive index deviations are negative. The structure and specific characteristics of different molecules in considered mixtures and determined non-ideal behaviour allow the insight into the possible type of interactions in the mixture, interstitial accommodation and structural effects. [Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. 172063]

show abstract

“…Experimental data on density, viscosity, and refractive index of these chemicals were compared with literature values at all investigated temperatures (Table − ). The agreement was satisfactory with differences mostly less than 0.8 kg·m –3 for densities, up to 9 × 10 –2 mPa·s for viscosities, and within 6 × 10 –4 almost in all cases for refractive indices.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density, Viscosity, and Refractive Index Data for a Ternary System of Wine Congeners (Ethyl Butyrate + Diethyl Succinate + Isobutanol) in the Temperature Range from 288.15 to 323.15 K and at Atmospheric Pressure

Majstorović

Živković

2016

J. Chem. Eng. Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Density, viscosity, and refractive index data for the ternary system ethyl butyrate + diethyl succinate + isobutanol and binary system ethyl butyrate + diethyl succinate have been measured in the temperature range 288.15–323.15 K, with temperature step of 5 K, and at atmospheric pressure. The measurements were performed on an Anton Paar DMA 5000 digital vibrating tube densimeter, Anton Paar SVM 3000 digital viscometer, and Anton Paar RXA 156 refractometer. Based on the corresponding binary data, as well as ternary data, presented in this work, excess molar volumes (V E), viscosity deviations (Δη), and refractive index deviations (Δn D) were determined and fitted by the Redlich–Kister and Nagata–Tamura polynomial equations. The influence of mixture composition on values of excess molar volume, deviation functions, and the molecular interactions present in the mixtures was further discussed.

show abstract

Cited by 81 publications

References 52 publications

An Attempt to Formulate Non‐Carbonate Electrolytes for Sodium‐Ion Batteries

An Attempt to Formulate Non‐Carbonate Electrolytes for Sodium‐Ion Batteries

Analysis of thermophysical properties of binary systems containing ethyl acetate and 1-propanol or 1-butanol

Density, Viscosity, and Refractive Index Data for a Ternary System of Wine Congeners (Ethyl Butyrate + Diethyl Succinate + Isobutanol) in the Temperature Range from 288.15 to 323.15 K and at Atmospheric Pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About