Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fluid Phase Equilibria

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / fl u i d

Temperature-dependent coefficient of surface tension prediction

model without arbitrary parameters
Haibo Kou a, Weiguo Li a, b, *, Xuyao Zhang a, Niandong Xu a, Xianhe Zhang a,
Jiaxing Shao a, Jianzuo Ma a, Yong Deng a, Ying Li a
a
College of Aerospace Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and Control, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, we report a temperature-dependent prediction model without arbitrary parameters for the
Received 8 August 2018 coefficient of surface tension of homogeneous liquid, and then validate it by the available experimental
Received in revised form data of fifteen kinds of pure liquids. Very small maximum deviation or absolute average deviation be-
18 November 2018
tween predicted and experimental results has been obtained. The prediction model uncovers the
Accepted 21 November 2018
Available online 23 November 2018
inherent relationship between the coefficient of surface tension, boiling point, heat of evaporation, heat
capacity, and coefficient of linear expansion. Furthermore, it reveals that the decrease of cohesion energy
determines the decline of coefficient of surface tension and can analyze the variation of coefficient of
Keywords:
Coefficient of surface tension
surface tension with increasing temperature.
Temperature-dependent © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Homogeneous liquid
Prediction model

1. Introduction which can be variable for different measurement methods; and

Surface tension is an important thermophysical property for
materials. It is a reflection of the nature of material surface. The
knowledge of it is significant to a wide range of surface phenomena
[1e6]. Moreover, surface tension also plays an important role in
many processes and can have a decisive effect on both process
control and product quality [7e9]. The two primary factors which
have effects on the magnitude of surface tension are chemical
composition of phases and temperature [10]. Thus, the
temperature-dependence of surface tension is very important and
has long been concerned by researchers.
In order to measure the coefficient of surface tension of liq-
uids, a great amount of efforts have been made and various
experimental technologies were reported [7,10e12]. However,
the experimental results at different temperatures, especially at
elevated temperatures, can be affected by many factors. Gener-
ally speaking, experimental uncertainties of the coefficient of
surface tension can arise from the following two reasons: sys-
tematic errors due to experimental methods (typically±2%) [7],
* Corresponding author. College of Aerospace Engineering, Chongqing University,
Chongqing, 400044, China.
E-mail address: wgli@cqu.edu.cn (W. Li).
the other one, impurity of tested specimens [13], which is
especially a problem for the measurement of liquid metals. The
contamination by oxygen can cause a dramatic decrease of sur-
face tension [14]. Thus, it is possible to partially compensate the
effects of surface contaminants by calculating a mean value of
the higher surface tension values only for liquid metals [10].
Keene [10] and Mills [7] reviewed the surface tension experi-
mental data and gave recommend values for many pure metals
liquid, and in section 3.2, their recommend values are compared
with the model predictions.
As mentioned above, challenges lie in constructing high
temperature experimental environments and measuring tech-
niques. Meanwhile, theoretical research plays a crucial role in the
understanding of material properties. And theoretical models can
lead to financial and time savings since they can significantly
minimize the amount of experimental testing [15]. Therefore,
substantial efforts have been directed towards development of
reliable models characterizing the temperature-dependent coef-
ficient of surface tension, and many theoretical models have been
developed. For the majority of liquids, their coefficient of surface
tension decreases approximately linearly with increasing tem-
perature in some temperature ranges. Thus, the following
expression is frequently used to represent the experimental re-
sults [7,10,13,16,17]:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2018.11.024
0378-3812/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
54 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59
List of symbols
gðTÞ coefficient of surface tension at temperature T
TB boiling point
TM melting point
T0 reference temperature
gS surface free energy of solid materials
gL surface free energy of liquid materials
CNSur coordination numbers of the surface atom
CNBul coordination numbers of the bulk atom
EBul(S) bulk cohesion energy of solid materials
EBul(L) bulk cohesion energy of liquid materials
K proportionality coefficient
DHvap heat of evaporation
Cv(t) temperature dependent molar heat capacity at
constant volume
aðtÞ temperature dependent coefficient of linear
expansion
dg
gðTÞ ¼ gðTM Þ þ ðT  TM Þ (1)
dT
where gðTÞ and gðTM Þ denote the coefficient of surface tension at
temperature T and melting point TM , respectively. Some other in-
vestigations show that the variation with temperature of some
liquids' surface tension is obviously not linear, and use quadratic
equation to describe the temperature-dependent surface tension
[18e21]. In addition, there are also some approaches to present the
coefficient of surface tension at different temperatures, such as the
corresponding states principle [1,22e25], the gradient theory
[3,26,27], parachor method [28,29], and so on. These methods and
researches provide new ways to study the temperature-dependent
surface tension for various liquids and greatly contribute to the
knowledge of it. However, the proposed models sometimes furnish
fitting parameters [4]. And calculation of these fitting parameters
relies on a number of experimental data at different temperatures.
More importantly, although many attempts have been made to
correlate surface tension with other material properties, limited
success has been achieved [10].
In this study, a new temperature-dependent coefficient of sur-
face tension prediction model without any arbitrary parameter is
developed, and then validated by the available experimental data of
fifteen kinds of pure liquids. The model uncovers the inherent
relationship between the temperature-dependent coefficient of
surface tension, boiling point, heat of evaporation, heat capacity,
and coefficient of linear expansion. It reveals the law governing the
variation of coefficient of surface tension with temperature.
2. Theoretical derivation
In materials science, surface tension and surface free energy are
highly correlated and widely concerned by researchers. Some re-
searchers [30,31] propose that the surface free energy of solid ma-
terials is related to the coordination numbers and bulk cohesion
energy: gS ¼ ð1  CNSur =CNBul ÞEBulðSÞ , where gS denotes the surface
free energy of solid; CNSur and CNBul denote coordination numbers of
the surface atom and that of the corresponding bulk one, respec-
tively; and EBul(S) denotes the bulk cohesion energy. After that, Aqra
and Ayyad [32] extend the above equation to liquid state: gL ¼
ð1  CNSur =CNBul ÞEBulðLÞ , where gL denotes the surface free energy
of liquid materials, and EBul(L) denotes their bulk cohesion energy.
Moreover, their study shows that CNSur =CNBul can be valued as a
constant from the melting point to boiling point [32]. However,
recent researches [33,34] show a different expression of the surface
free energy for solid materials: gS ¼ ½1  ðCNSur =CNBul Þ1=2 EBulðSÞ . It
can be seen that different researchers may hold different opinions
about the specific expression of the surface free energy for solids.
Moreover, as an extension of the relationship between surface free
energy and bulk cohesion energy from solid to liquid state, maybe
the specific expression of Aqra and Ayyad's equation should change.
Fortunately, no matter what the specific expression is, we can reach a
conclusion from above discussion that the surface free energy of
liquid materials is proportional to their bulk cohesion energy, and
propose a unified expression:
gL ¼ KEBulðLÞ (2)
where gL donates the surface free energy of liquid, EBul(L) denotes
the bulk cohesion energy, and K is a proportionality coefficient,
which is related to the coordination numbers of the surface and
bulk liquid atom.
In liquid materials science, surface tension and surface free
energy always have the same magnitude and dimension. Thus, they
are not strictly differentiated in most surface researches of liquid
materials. Extend Eq. (2) to different temperatures between the
melting point and boiling point, we can obtain:
h i
gL ðT0 Þ  gL ðTÞ ¼ K EBulðLÞ ðT0 Þ  EBulðLÞ ðTÞ (3)
where gðT0 Þ and gðTÞ are the coefficient of surface tension at
arbitrary reference temperature T0 and study temperature T,
respectively. EBul(L) (T0) and EBul(L) (T) are the molar bulk cohesion
energy at temperatures T0 and T, respectively. Their difference can
also be expressed as:
ðT
EBulðLÞ ðT0 Þ  EBulðLÞ ðTÞ ¼ Cv ðtÞdt (4)
T0
where Cv(t) denotes the molar heat capacity at constant volume.
When temperature increases near the boiling point, materials
are at liquid state, surface tensions are still quite large. However,
once they are gasified at the boiling point, their surface tension
changes to zero abruptly at ordinary pressure. Therefore, the heat of
evaporation should be considered in the cohesion energy at the
boiling point, which is:
2 3
TðB
gL ðT0 Þ  gL ðTB Þ ¼ K 6
4
7
Cv ðtÞdt þ DHvap 5 (5)
T0
where TB is the boiling point, DHvap is the molar heat of evapora-
tion, gL ðTB Þ is the coefficient of surface tension at boiling point and
equal to zero. Then, the proportionality coefficient K can be
expressed as:
gL ðT0 Þ
ð TB ¼K (6)
Cv ðtÞdt þ DHvap
T0
Substituting Eqs. (4) and (6) in Eq. (3), it becomes:
 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59 55

 
gL ðT0 Þ Cv ðTB  TÞ þ DHVap
ðT gL ðTÞ ¼  (10)
gL ðT0 Þ 1 þ aðT  T0 Þ Cv ðTB  T0 Þ þ DHVap
gL ðT0 Þ  gL ðTÞ ¼ ð TB Cv ðtÞdt (7)
Cv ðtÞdt þ DHvap T0 In this way, a new temperature-dependent coefficient of surface
T0
tension prediction model without any arbitrary parameter is
developed. It reveals the inherent relationship between the coef-
which can also be presented as:
ficient of surface tension, boiling point, heat of evaporation, heat
ðT capacity, and coefficient of linear expansion. If one of the above
Cv ðtÞdt parameters is harder to be obtained than surface tension, then the
gL ðTÞ T0 surface tension can be used to calculate other material parameters.
¼ 1  ðT (8)
gL ðT0 Þ B In the following section, available experimental data of fifteen
Cv ðtÞdt þ DHvap kinds of pure liquids are found to validate the model. Furthermore,
T0
the model can also help analyze the variation of coefficient of
In addition, surface tension is a macro reflection of intermo- surface tension with increasing temperature.
lecular or interatomic forces. Definition of coefficient of surface
tension indicates it has the dimension of force per unit length. We 3. Results and discussion
hold the point that the force per unit length is generally affected by
two parts, the force between each molecule or atom and the 3.1. Surface tension of compounds
quantity of molecule or atom per unit length. Eq. (8) reflects the
force between molecules or atomics but does not include the The surface tension experimental data of tetrachloromethane
quantity change of them per unit length with increasing temper- (CCl4) [41], trichloromethane (CHCl3), benzene (C6H6), phenol
ature. Let a0 denotes the bond length at reference temperature T0, (C6H5OH) [42], and water (H2O) [21,41,43] are found and corre-
RT
then bond length at temperature T is a0 ð1 þ T0 aðtÞdtÞ, where aðtÞ sponding values are predicted by the model. The reference
is the temperature-dependent coefficient of linear expansion. Then, temperature, boiling point, and heat of evaporation of these
the ratio of quantity of atoms or molecules per unit length at calculated materials are shown in Table 1. Their temperature-
RT dependent coefficient of volume expansions are shown in
temperature T and T0 can be easily obtained as 1=ð1 þ T0 aðtÞdtÞ.
Table 2, and the coefficient of linear expansion can be taken as
Researches also show that thermal expansion is an influence factor
one third of it [39]. The molar heat capacity of CCl4 is 133.9
that has effects on the surface tension of liquids [35e37]. Consid-
J=ðmol$KÞ [39]. The specific heat capacity of other compounds are
ering the above analyses, this part should be multiplied in Eq. (8).
shown from Table 3 to Table 6.
Then a temperature-dependent coefficient of surface tension pre-
Comparisons between experimental and predicted coefficient of
diction model for liquids can be obtained:
surface tension of CCl4 (a), CHCl3 (b), C6H6 (c), C6H5OH (d), and H2O
0 1 (e) are shown in Fig. 1. One can see that good agreement has been
ðT obtained. The maximum deviations between experimental and
B C
B C predicted results are listed in Table 1, those of CCl4, CHCl3, C6H6, and
B Cv ðtÞdt C
gL ðT0 Þ B C C6H5OH are rather small. As for H2O, there is a relatively large
gL ðTÞ ¼ ðT  B 1  ð TB
T0 C (9)
B C maximum deviation (2.40%) between the experimental data and
B C
1þ aðtÞdt B Cv ðtÞdT þ DHVap C predicted results. This is resulted from the facts that the variation
T0 @ T0 A
with temperature of the quantity of hydrogen bond is ignored in
the model. To our knowledge, water has a higher surface tension
For a large amount of materials, the coefficient of linear because of the relatively high attraction through hydrogen bonds
expansion and molar heat capacity are constant in a large tem- [45]. And the quantity of hydrogen bonds decreases with increasing
perature range between the melting point and boiling point temperature [46]. However, in the presented model, decreasing of
[38e40]. Thus, the model can also be expressed as: the quantity of hydrogen bond is not sufficiently considered, which
makes the predicted results higher than experimental data.

Table 1
The physical parameters of calculated materials and maximum deviation between Table 3
experimental and predicted results [42e44]. The specific heat capacity of CHCl3 at different temperatures [42].

Materials CCl4 CHCl3 C6H6 C6H5OH H2O Temperature (K) 273.0 293.0 313.0 333.0
Reference temperature (K) 288.1 273.0 293.0 333.0 273.0 Specific heat capacity (J/(gK)) 0.958 0.963 0.968 0.976
Boiling point (K) 349.9 334.2 353.1 454.8 373.0
Heat of evaporation (J/g) 195.1 244.9 393.2 489.0 2257.0
Number of experimental points 3 4 4 6 37
Maximum deviation (%) 0.39 1.35 0.35 0.40 2.40 Table 4
The specific heat capacity of C6H6 at different temperatures [42].

Temperature (K) 293.0 313.0 333.0 353.0

Table 2 Specific heat capacity (J/(gK)) 1.716 1.767 1.828 1.881
The temperature-dependent coefficient of volume expansion of calculated mate-
rials, bðTÞ ¼ 103  ða þ 2bT  103 þ 3cT 2  105 Þ[44].

Materials CCl4 CHCl3 C6H6 C6H5OH Hg Table 5

Temperature range (oC) 0e76 0e63 11e80 36e157 0e300 The specific heat capacity of C6H5OH at different temperatures [42].
a 1.18384 1.10715 1.17626 0.83400 0.18152
Temperature (K) 333.0 353.0 373.0 393.0 413.0 433.0
b 0.89881 4.66473 1.27776 0.10732 0.00833
c 1.35135 1.74328 0.80648 0.44460 0.01338 Specific heat capacity (J/(gK)) 2.138 2.196 2.257 2.317 2.377 2.262
56 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59

Table 6
The temperature-dependent heat capacity and coefficient of linear expansion of H2O [43].

Temperature (K) 273.0 283.0 293.0 303.0 313.0 323.0 333.0 343.0 353.0 363.0 373.0

Specific heat capacity (J/(gK)) 4.218 4.192 4.182 4.178 4.179 4.181 4.184 4.189 4.196 4.205 4.216
Coefficient of linear expansion (mm/(mK)) 23.0 29.3 69.0 102.3 130.0 153.3 176.0

3.2. Surface tension of pure metal liquids
In this section, the coefficient of surface tension of ten kinds of
pure metal liquids at different temperatures were predicted and
compared with experimental data. The thermophysical property
parameters used in prediction are presented in Table 7 and Table 8.
Comparisons between the predicted and experimental data are
shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 shows the comparisons between experimental data or
recommend values and predicted coefficient of surface tension of Al
(a), Co (b), Cu (c), Fe (d), Ni (e), Mn (f), Sn (g), Ti (h), Zn (i), and Hg (j).
It is obvious that good agreement has been obtained. The maximum
deviations between predicted and experimental data of Al, Co, Cu,
Fe, Ni, Mn, Zn, and Hg are shown in Table 7, which are very small. As
for Sn and Ti, their absolute average deviations (AAD) are 0.37% and
0.23%, respectively. The temperature-dependent coefficient of
surface tension prediction model without arbitrary parameters has
been validated. In Fig. 2 (g), White [16] experimentally measured

Fig. 1. Comparisons between predicted results and experimental data of surface tension of CCl4 (a) [41], CHCl3 (b), C6H6 (c), C6H5OH (d) [42], and H2O (e) [21,41,43] as function of
temperature.
 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59 57

Table 7
The physical parameters used in the coefficient of surface tension prediction and the maximum deviation of pure metal liquids [38e40,44,47].

Pure Reference temperature Molar heat capacity (J/ Coefficient of linear expansion (mm/ Boiling point Heat of evaporation (J/ Maximum deviation
metal (K) (molK)) (mK)) (K) mol) (%)

Al 933.0 31.748 110.5 2720.0 293846.7 0.62

Co 1770.0 40.501 91.0 3200.0 382586.7 0.27
Cu 1348.5 31.380 119.0 2848.0 304729.9 1.01
Fe 1812.0 46.024 82.0 3135.0 351192.8 0.28
Ni 1728.0 43.095 93.0 3187.0 372122.1 0.18
Mn 1518.0 46.024 177.0 2335.0 219757.1 0.65
a
Sn 550.0 86.0 2876.0 274173.2 0.37 (AAD)
Ti 1943.0 35.564 55.0 3000.0 426350.0 0.23 (AAD)
Zn 693.0 31.380 111.0 1180.0 115362.0 0.85
Hg 273.0 e e 629.7 58575.2 0.72
a
The temperature-dependent molar heat capacity of Sn is (J/(molK)):

Cp ðTÞ ¼ 21:539 þ 6:146  103 T þ 12:883  105 T 2 ð505K  800KÞ

Cp ðTÞ ¼ 28:451 ð800K  2876KÞ

the temperature-dependent surface tension of Sn and gave a linear the temperature-dependent coefficient of surface tension without
equation as Eq. (1) to describe its variation with temperature. One any arbitrary parameter. Furthermore, as can be seen in Fig. 2,
can see that both White's equation and our model reach good although there have been many experimental attempts to deter-
agreement with the experimental results. However, White's equa- mine the accurate values for surface tension, there is still poor
tion is a phenomenological formula and lacks physical bases. The agreement among the existing experimental results [13]. And the
model developed in this study has a significant value of predicting variation tendencies of the experimental data with increasing
temperature given by different researchers are also different. In this
Table 8 condition, the model developed in this study can also be used to
The specific heat capacity of Hg at different temperatures [42]. evaluate which of the experimental results are more convincing to
Temperature (K) 298.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 600.0 some extent.
Up to now, there have been many attempts to correlate surface
Specific heat capacity (J/(gK)) 0.140 0.138 0.137 0.136 0.136 0.135
tension of pure metals with material properties (e.g. heat of

Fig. 2. Comparisons between experimental data or recommend values and the predicted results of Surface tension of Al (a) [7,48e51], Co (b) [7,10,52e55], Cu (c) [7,10,55e59], Fe (d)
[10,55,56,60e63], Ni (e) [10,56,60,61,64,65], Mn (f) [10], Sn (g) [16], Ti (h) [10,54,65e68], Zn (i) [10], and Hg (j) [10] as function of temperature.
58 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59
vaporization, compressibility, thermal expansion, shear viscosity),
all of which only have met with limited success [10]. In this study,
the developed coefficient of surface tension prediction model is
expressed by the heat capacity, coefficient of linear expansion,
boiling point, and heat of evaporation of materials without any
arbitrary parameter; it successfully uncovers the inherent rela-
tionship between the coefficient of surface tension and these
thermodynamic quantities. Most importantly, the model can also
reveal the law governing the variation of coefficient of surface
tension with temperature. It indicates that the decrease of cohesion
energy determines the decline of coefficient of surface tension.
Furthermore, it also indicates the reasons why the surface tensions
of most liquid materials decrease approximately linearly with
increasing temperature are that their temperature-dependent heat
capacity at liquid phase are, or approximately are, a constant; and
the effects of coefficient of linear expansion is not great enough to
markedly affect the variation of coefficient of surface tension with
temperature.
4. Conclusion
In this study, a temperature-dependent prediction model
without any arbitrary parameter for the coefficient of surface ten-
sion of homogeneous liquid is developed, and then validated by the
available experimental data of fifteen kinds of pure liquids. Good
agreement between the predicted and experimental results has
been obtained. Furthermore, it uncovers the inherent relationship
between the coefficient of surface tension, boiling point, heat of
evaporation, heat capacity, and coefficient of linear expansion. If
one of the above parameters is harder to be obtained than surface
tension, then the surface tension can be used to calculate other
material parameters. It has obvious advantages on the aspects of
physical significance, predictive ability, and application conditions.
Most importantly, the model can also reveal the law governing the
variation of coefficient of surface tension with temperature. It in-
dicates that the decrease of cohesion energy determines the decline
of coefficient of surface tension. The coefficient of surface tension of
most liquid materials decreases approximately linearly with
increasing temperature, is because that the temperature-
dependent heat capacity of them are, or approximately are, a
constant; and the effects of coefficient of linear expansion is not
great enough.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [grant numbers 11672050, 11472066]; the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant
numbers 106112017CDJXYY0001, 106112017CDJQJ328840 and
2018CDPTCG0001/17]; Graduate Research and Innovation Foun-
dation of Chongqing [grant number CYS18055]; and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 11727802].
References
[1] B.C. Hoke Jr., J.C. Chen, Binary aqueous-organic surface tension temperature
dependence, J. Chem. Eng. Data 36 (1991) 322e326.
[2] S. Sastri, K. Rao, A simple method to predict surface tension of organic liquids,
Chem. Eng. J. Biochem. Eng. J. 59 (1995) 181e186.
[3] H. Lin, Y.-Y. Duan, Q. Min, Gradient theory modeling of surface tension for
pure fluids and binary mixtures, Fluid Phase Equil. 254 (2007) 75e90.
[4] A.A. Rafati, E. Ghasemian, H. Iloukhani, Surface tension and surface properties
of binary mixtures of 1, 4-dioxane or N, N-dimethyl formamide with n-alkyl
acetates, J. Chem. Eng. Data 54 (2009) 3224e3228.
~ a, Recommended correlations for the surface tension of
[5] A. Mulero, I. Cachadin
several fluids included in the REFPROP program, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 43
(2014), 023104.
[6] G.D. Nicola, M. Pierantozzi, A new scaled equation to calculate the surface
tension of ketones, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 116 (2014) 129e134.
[7] K. Mills, Y. Su, Review of surface tension data for metallic elements and alloys:
Part 1-Pure metals, Int. Mater. Rev. 51 (2006) 329e351.
[8] V. Goussard, F. Duprat, V. Gerbaud, J.L. Ploix, G. Dreyfus, V. Nardello-Rataj,
J.M. Aubry, Predicting the surface tension of liquids: comparison of four
modeling approaches and application to cosmetic oils, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57
(2017) 2986e2995.
[9] H. Lu, Q. Jiang, Surface tension and its temperature coefficient for liquid
metals, J. Chem. Phys. Chem. B 109 (2005) 15463e15468.
[10] B. Keene, Review of data for the surface tension of pure metals, Int. Mater. Rev.
38 (1993) 157e192.
[11]  Mulero, M. Pierantozzi, I. Cachadin
A. ~ a, G.D. Nicola, An Artificial Neural
Network for the surface tension of alcohols, Fluid Phase Equil. 449 (2017)
28e40.
[12] G.D. Nicola, M. Pierantozzi, Surface tension of alcohols: a scaled equation and
an artificial neural network, Fluid Phase Equil. 389 (2015) 16e27.
[13] A. Kasama, A. McLean, W. Miller, Z. Morita, M. Ward, Surface tension of liquid
iron and iron-oxygen alloys, Can. Metall. Q. 22 (1983) 9e17.
[14] K. Mills, B. Keene, Factors affecting variable weld penetration, Int. Mater. Rev.
35 (1990) 185e216.
[15] H. Kou, W. Li, J. Ma, J. Shao, Y. Tao, X. Zhang, P. Geng, Y. Deng, Y. Li, X. Zhang,
Theoretical prediction of the temperature-dependent yield strength of solid
solution strengthening Nickel-based alloys, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 140 (2018)
83e92.
[16] D. White, The surface tensions of Pb, Sn, and Pb-Sn alloys, Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 2 (1971) 3067e3071.
[17] R. Brooks, B. Monaghan, A. Barnicoat, A. McCabe, K. Mills, P. Quested, The
physical properties of alloys in the liquid and “mushy” states, Int. J. Ther-
mophys. 17 (1996) 1151e1161.
[18] G. Gittens, Variation of surface tension of water with temperature, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 30 (1969) 406e412.
[19] R. Cini, G. Loglio, A. Ficalbi, Temperature dependence of the surface tension of
water by the equilibrium ring method, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 41 (1972)
287e297.
[20] K. Johansson, J.C. Eriksson, Determination of dg/dT for water by means of a
differential technique, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 40 (1972) 398e405.
[21] W.V. Kayser, Temperature dependence of the surface tension of water in
contact with its saturated vapor, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 56 (1976) 622e627.
[22] J.W. Schmidt, E. Carrillo-Nava, M.R. Moldover, Partially halogenated hydro-
carbons CHFCl-CF3, CF3-CH3, CF3-CHF-CHF2, CF3-CH2-CF3, CHF2-CF2-CH2F,
CF3-CH2-CHF2, CF3-O-CHF2: critical temperature, refractive indices, surface
tension and estimates of liquid, vapor and critical densities, Fluid Phase Equil.
122 (1996) 187e206.
[23] C. Miqueu, D. Broseta, J. Satherley, B. Mendiboure, J. Lachaise, A. Graciaa, An
extended scaled equation for the temperature dependence of the surface
tension of pure compounds inferred from an analysis of experimental data,
Fluid Phase Equil. 172 (2000) 169e182.
[24] G. Di Nicola, C. Di Nicola, M. Moglie, M. Pacetti, A corresponding states
principle-based equation for the surface tension of Alkenes, J. Therm. Anal.
Calorim. 108 (2012) 621e625.
[25] F. Gharagheizi, A. Eslamimanesh, M. Sattari, A.H. Mohammadi, D. Richon,
Development of corresponding states model for estimation of the surface
tension of chemical compounds, AIChE J. 59 (2013) 613e621.
[26] H. Kahl, S. Enders, Calculation of surface properties of pure fluids using den-
sity gradient theory and SAFT-EOS, Fluid Phase Equil. 172 (2000) 27e42.
[27] V. Vins, B. Plankov a, J. Hrubý, Surface tension of binary mixtures including
polar components modeled by the density gradient theory combined with the
PC-SAFT equation of state, Int. J. Thermophys. (2013) 1e21.
[28] C.A.W. Allen, K.C. Watts, R.G. Ackman, Predicting the surface tension of bio-
diesel fuels from their fatty acid composition, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 76 (1999)
317e323.
[29] J. Escobedo, G.A. Mansoori, Surface tension prediction for pure fluids, AIChE J.
42 (1996) 1425e1433.
[30] W.R. Tyson, W.A. Miller, Surface free energies of solid metals, estimation from
liquid surface tension measurements, Surf. Sci. 62 (1977) 267e276.
[31] H. Lu, Q. Jiang, Size-dependent surface energies of nanocrystals, J. Phys. Chem.
B 108 (2004) 5617e5619.
[32] F. Aqra, A. Ayyad, Surface energies of metals in both liquid and solid states,
Appl. Surf. Sci. 257 (2011) 6372e6379.
[33] A.F. Wright, P.J. Feibelman, S.R. Atlas, First-principles calculation of the
Mg(0001) surface relaxation, Surf. Sci. 302 (1994) 215e222.
[34] I. Galanakis, N. Papanikolaou, P.H. Dederichs, Applicability of the broken-bond
rule to the surface energy of the fcc metals, Surf. Sci. 511 (2002) 1e12.
[35] J. Bohdansky, Temperature dependence of surface tension for liquid metals,
J. Chem. Phys. 49 (1968) 2982e2986.
[36] S.W. Mayer, Interrelationships among thermal expansivities, surface tensions
and compressibilities for molten salts, J. Chem. Phys. 40 (1964) 2429e2430.
[37] H.T. Davis, K.D. Luks, Recent statistical mechanical theories of thermodynamic
properties of molten salts, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 6 (1967) 194e208.
 H. Kou et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 484 (2019) 53e59
[38] T. Saito, Y. Shiraishi, Y. Sakuma, Trans. Iron Steel Inst. Japan (ISIJ) (1969) 9.
[39] Y. Liang, Y. Che, Handbook of Thermodynamic Data of Inorganic Compounds,
Press of Northeast University, China, 1993.
[40] P. Nasch, S. Steinemann, Density and thermal expansion of molten manga-
nese, iron, nickel, copper, aluminum and tin by means of the gamma-ray
attenuation technique, Phys. Chem. Liq. 29 (1995) 43e58.
[41] S. Mayer, Dependence of surface tension on temperature, J. Phys. Chem. 38
(1963) 1803e1808.
[42] L. Guangqi, M. Lianxiang, L. Jie, Huaxue Huagong Wuxing Shuju Shouce, first
ed., Chemical Industry Press, Beijing, 2002.
[43] http://www.matweb.com/index.aspx.
[44] D.E. Gray, American Institute of Physics Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1982.
 s, The contribution of hydrogen bonds to the surface
[45] A. Luzar, S. Svetina, B. Zek
tension of water, Chem. Phys. Lett. 96 (1983) 485e490.
[46] M.H. Abraham, W.E. Acree, The hydrogen bond properties of water from 273 K
to 573 K; equations for the prediction of gas-water partition coefficients, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (2012) 7433e7440.
[47] R.C. Weast, M.J. Astle, W.H. Beyer, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
CRC press, Boca raton FL, 1989.
[48] L. Goumiri, J. Joud, Auger electron spectroscopy study of aluminium-tin liquid
system, Acta Metall. 30 (1982) 1397e1405.
[49] A. Pamies, C.G. Cordovilla, E. Louis, The measurement of surface tension of
liquid aluminium by means of the maximum bubble pressure method: the
effect of surface oxidation, Scripta Metall. 18 (1984) 869e872.
[50] C. Garcia-Cordovilla, E. Louis, A. Pamies, The surface tension of liquid pure
aluminium and aluminium-magnesium alloy, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1986)
2787e2792.
[51] J. Anson, R. Drew, J. Gruzleski, The surface tension of molten aluminum and
Al-Si-Mg alloy under vacuum and hydrogen atmospheres, Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 30 (1999) 1027e1032.
[52] R.F. Brooks, K.C. Mills, Measurement of the Thermophysical Properties of
Melts by a Levitated-drop Method, vol. 25, High Temp.-High Press, 1993,
pp. 657e664.
[53] R.-A. Eichel, I. Egry, Surface tension and surface segregation of liquid cobalt-
iron and cobalt-copper alloys, Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 90 (1999) 371e375.
[54] B. Vinet, L. Magnusson, H. Fredriksson, P.J. Desre, Correlations between surface
and interface energies with respect to crystal nucleation, J. Colloid Interface
59
Sci. 255 (2002) 363e374.
[55] J. Lee, A. Kiyose, S. Nakatsuka, M. Nakamoto, T. Tanaka, Improvements in
surface tension measurements of liquid metals having low capillary constants
by the constrained drop method, ISIJ Int. 44 (2004) 1793e1799.
[56] R.F. Brooks, I. Egry, S. Seetharaman, D. Grant, Reliable Data for High-
temperature Viscosity and Surface Tension: Results from a European Proj-
ect, High. Temp. - High. Press. 33 (2001) 631e637.
[57] J. Lee, W. Shimoda, T. Tanaka, Surface tension and its temperature coefficient
of liquid Sn-X (X¼ Ag, Cu) alloys, Mater. Trans. 45 (2004) 2864e2870.
[58] J. Lee, T. Tanaka, Y. Asano, S. Hara, Oxygen adsorption behavior on the surface
of liquid Cu-Ag alloys, Mater. Trans. 45 (2004) 2719e2722.
[59] T. Matsumoto, H. Fujii, T. Ueda, M. Kamai, K. Nogi, Measurement of surface
tension of molten copper using the free-fall oscillating drop method, Meas.
Sci. Technol. 16 (2005) 432.
[60] H.K. Lee, M.G. Frohberg, J.P. Hajra, The determination of the surface tensions of
liquid iron, nickel and iron-nickel alloys using the electromagnetic oscillating
droplet technique, Steel Res. Int. 64 (1993) 191e196.
[61] A. Sharan, A. Cramb, Surface tension and wettability studies of liquid Fe-Ni-O
alloys, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 28 (1997) 465e472.
[62] G. Wille, F. Millot, J. Rifflet, Thermophysical properties of containerless liquid
iron up to 2500 K, Int. J. Thermophys. 23 (2002) 1197e1206.
[63] J. Brillo, I. Egry, Surface tension of nickel, copper, iron and their binary alloys,
J. Mater. Sci. 40 (2005) 2213e2216.
[64] S.-F. Chen, R. Overfelt, Effects of sample size on surface-tension measurements
of nickel in reduced-gravity parabolic flights, Int. J. Thermophys. 19 (1998)
817e826.
[65] K.F. Man, Surface tension measurements of liquid metals by the quasi-
containerless pendant drop method, Int. J. Thermophys. 21 (2000) 793e804.
[66] G. Kuppermann, Ph. D. thesis, in: The Determination of the Surface Tension
with the Help of the Levitierten Reciprocating Drop under Terrestrial Condi-
tions and in Space, 2000.
[67] P.-F. Paradis, T. Ishikawa, S. Yoda, Non-contact measurements of surface
tension and viscosity of niobium, zirconium, and titanium using an electro-
static levitation furnace, Int. J. Thermophys. 23 (2002) 825e842.
[68] S. Amore, J. Brillo, I. Egry, R. Novakovic, Surface tension of liquid Cu-Ti
measured by electromagnetic levitation and thermodynamic modelling,
Appl. Surf. Sci. 257 (2011) 7739e7745.