Experimental Determination of the Joule-Thomson Coefficient of Nitrogen,

Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen

Nathaniel J. Wise.
Bob Jones University, Division of Science, Department of Chemistry
1700 Wade Hampton Blvd. Greenville, SC 29614

Abstract
The lab group set up a Joule-Thomson cell to measure the Joule-Thomson coefficient of
three different gases. The gases underwent a decrease in pressure that led to a decrease in
temperature; plotting this change in temperature against the change in pressure led to the calculation
of the Joule-Thomson coefficient. Using other experimentally determined data, the Joule-Thomson
coefficient was also calculated in two other methods.

Introduction
The Joule-Thomson effect is the
temperature change that results when a gas is
isothermally forced through a porous plug. At
room temperature, all gases drop in
temperature during the Joule-Thomson
process, with the exception of hydrogen,
helium and neon.
Real gas effects can be significant at a
large range of pressures.i Values obtained for
these effects of course largely depend on what
parameters are used in the calculations.ii The
use of Joule-Thomson effects, in addition to
other real-gas deviation from ideal-gas
behavior, is very important to modeling real
gasesiii, and
The experiment used the large tanks
of gas on hand in the lab. The purity of the
gas was not noted since it had little effect on
the experiment and purifying the gas required
a disproportionate effort, as explained in the
literature [iv,v].

The lab group used a Joule-Thomson

apparatus connected to a copper tube in a
temperature regulating bath to perform the
experiment. We measured the pressure of the
gas and its temperature both going into and
coming out of the Joule-Thomson cell.
From the data collected and using
equations which will be expounded later, the
Joule-Thomson coefficient of each gas was
calculated; equations were taken from the
literaturevi.
The
calculated
Joule-Thomson
coefficients were the following. For nitrogen:
0.2105. For carbon dioxide: 1.2276. For
oxygen: 0.3626. The coefficients were also
calculated in two additional methods,
discussed later in this report.
In concluding the experiment, it is
shown that gasses experiencing a change in
pressure undergo a temperature change
related to their Joule-Thomson coefficient.

Methods and Materials

minutes, in order to avoid contaminating the

results.

Setup

Results

Our experiment used the standard

setup for the Joule-Thomson process. Each
gas came from a gas cylinder in the lab. The
gas ran from the cylinder, through a
temperature-regulating water-bath to the
Joule-Thomson cell. The cell, diagrammed
below in Figure 1, consisted of an inlet for the
gas supply, an outlet for a pressure gauge, two
connections for a thermocoupler (one to
measure the temperature of the gas going in
and one for the outgoing temperature), and a
porous plug through which the gas was
forced, causing the Joule-Thomson effect.
The gas then exited the Joule-Thomson cell.
Glass wool surrounded the apparatus to
ensure that there was no temperature
exchange with the environment.

The data collected was organized and

graphed in Microsoft Excel. Change in
temperature was graphed as a function of
pressure. The data is presented below in
Figure 2.
The Joule-Thomson coefficients were
calculated for each gas by three different
methods. The first method was simply to take
the slope of the linear trendline from the
graph of pressure versus change in
temperature; this slope was , the JouleThomson coefficient.
Another method of calculating was
to use the van der Waals equation presented
in Garlands Experiments in Physical Chemistryvii.
(

Figure 1: The Joule-Thomson Apparatus

Procedure
For each part of the experiment, the
gas exited the cylinder, traveled through a
copper tube immersed in a temperaturecontrolled water bath, and entered the JouleThomson cell. For each phase, we flushed the
air or previous gas from the tube by letting
the current gas flow through for several

In this equation, a and b are constants

given in the text, T is temperature, R is the
universal gas constant, and Cp is the molar
heat capacity of the gas being studied,
obtained from Garland and the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.viii

a
b

N2
1.408
0.039

CO2
3.640
0.043

O2
1.382
0.032

Cp

0.2912

0.3711

0.2938

Table 1: Van der Waals Equation of State

Constants

Another method used to calculate the

coefficient was the Beattie-Bridgeman
equation, below.
(

] )

The last three terms in the equation

were insignificant, and dropping them
simplified calculations greatly, so they were
not included. This left the final BeattieBridgeman equation used to calculate the
Joule-Thomson coefficient as below:
(

A0, B0, a, b, and c are all constants

unique to each gas, with the values in Table 2.
Cp once again represents molar heat capacity,
R is the universal gas constant and T is the
temperature. Units are in L, mol, atm, and K.
The values for the constants were obtained
from the CRC handbook and a University of
Oklahoma website.ix
N2

CO2

O2

A0

1.3623

5.0728

1.51

B0

0.05046

0.10476

0.04624

0.02617

0.07132

0.02562

-0.00691

0.07235

0.004208

42000

660000

48000

Cp

0.2912

0.3711

0.2938

van der Waals method, and BB is the result of the

Beattie-Bridgeman method.

Table 2: Beattie-Bridgeman Equation of

State Constants
All of the values given in Table 1 and Table 2
were plugged into the appropriate equation; the
calculated values of , the Joule-Thomson
coefficient, are given in Table 3 below. meas is the
Joule-Thomson coefficient taken as the slop of
the trendline calculated from the measured data,
from the equations of the trendlines given in
Figure 2. vdW is the coefficient calculated with the

N2

CO2

O2

meas

0.2105

1.2276

0.3626

vdW

0.255916307

0.676767427

0.271117

BB

0.226141138

1.089929292

0.28217

Table 3: Experimental and Calculated JouleThomson Coefficients of N2, CO2 and O2 .

The inversion temperature (the

temperature at which the change in sign of
occurs) for each of the gases is calculated by
simply setting each equation for equal to
zero and solving for T. These values are given
below, in K.

N2
CO2
O2
Ti (vdW)
868.0000
2036
1038
Ti (BB)
657
1183
792
Table 3: Calculated Inversion
Temperatures
In this table, Ti (vdW) is the inversion
temperature calculated from the van der
Waals equation of state, and Ti (BB) is the
inversion temperature calculated from the
Beattie-Bridgeman equation of state.

had to be performed by the gas in order for it

to expand.

Temperature vs. Change in

Pressure for N2, CO2 and O2
0.0

5.0

10.0

Nitrogen

8.0

T (K)

7.0y = 1.2276x - 0.9429

6.0 R = 0.9928

Carbon dioxide

Oxygen

5.0
Linear (Nitrogen)

4.0
3.0
2.0

y = 0.2105x - 0.2992
R = 0.99

1.0

Linear (Carbon
dioxide)
Linear (Oxygen)

0.0
y = 0.3626x - 0.325
R = 1
Pressure (bars)

Figure 2. P vs. T from

Experimental Data

Discussion
The magnitude of the Joule-Thomson
coefficient for each gas is an indicator of the
extent of the temperature drop when the gas
is forced to undergo a pressure change. The
coefficient for carbon dioxide was the largest,
so it cooled the most. This was in evidence
during the procedure in running carbon
dioxide through the apparatus, frost appeared
on the gas cylinder as water vapor in the air
condensed and froze. This did not happen for
either of the other gases.
This occurs because the van der Waals forces
for CO2 are stronger than for the other gases.
This process was adiabatic, meaning that any
change in internal energy was a result of work
performed on the gas. Since the JT coefficient
for carbon dioxide was largest, the most work

Oxygen was the gas that required the next

largest amount of work, and nitrogen the
least.
Possible sources of error include small
leakages in the connections between the gas
cylinder and the Joule-Thomson cell, and in
measurements taken from the pressure gauge.
The gauge was of a low enough precision that
a small amount of error may have been
introduced.

Author Information
Corresponding Author

Nathaniel J. wise
nwise501@students.bju.edu

Author contribution:
The report was written solely by Nathaniel
Wise. See acknowledgements.

Notes
The author declares no competing financial
interest.

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Dr. Brian Vogt for his
assistance during the preparation and
procedure of the experiment, and his
invaluable help in the drafting of this report.
The experiment was done with equal
participation by this author, Patrick S. Avery,
Tyler S. Hacker, Eddie C. Hicks, Emily R.
Hummel, Mary E. Silos, W. Daniel Smith, and
Micah E. Raab.

References
i

Robert C. Johnson. Calculations of Real-Gas Effects

in flow Through Critical-Flow Nozzles. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1965. Page 5.
ii
Coray M. Colina, Luis F. Turrens, Keith E. Gubbins,
Claudio Olivera-Fuentes, and Lourdes F. Vega.
Predictions of the Joule-Thomson Inversion Curve for
the n-Alkane Series and Carbon Dioxide from the
Soft-SAFT Equation of State. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2002, 41, 1069-75.
iii
Marco Scholz, Thomas Harlacher, Thomas Melin,
and Matthias Wessling. Modeling Gas Permeation by
Linking Nonideal Effects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012.
Page 1-2.
iv
J. R. Roebuck and H. Osterberg. The Joule-Thomson
Effect in Nitrogen. Phys. Rev. 1935, 48, 450-57.
v
J. R. Roebuck, T. A. Murrell and E. E. Miller. The
Joule-Thomson Effect in Carbon Dioxide. Phys. Rev.
1942, 64, 400-11.
vi
Garland, Carl W., Joseph W. Nibler, and David P.
Shoemaker. Experiments in Physical Chemistry. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. 100.
Print.
vii
Garland. 101.
viii
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 81st ed.
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000-2001; p 4-125.
ix
Huang, Meirong, and Kurt Gramoll.
"Thermodynamics EBooks: Ideal Gas."
Thermodynamics - Theory. Oklahoma University,
n.d., accessed 10/04/12. Web.
https://ecourses.ou.edu/cgibin/ebook.cgi?doc=&topic=th&chap_sec=02.4&page
=theory