-

" . .
COPY
- I
R M E52D24

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF WATER IN HYDROCARBONS

By R. R. Hibbard and R. L. Schalla

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory

Cleveland, Ohio

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS
WASHINGTON
July 10, 1952
1s W A F?M E52D24
.
NATIONALmvrsoIpy COMMITEX FOR AERO~UTICS

By R. R . Hibbard and X. L. S c h U

A study of the l f t e r a t u r e data on the s o l u b i l i t y of water i n hydro-

carbons has shown that (a) the log of t h e s o l u b i l i t y i s inversely pro-
p o r t i o n a l t o the r e c i p r o c a of t h e absolute temperature, (b) there is
an apparent critical solution “ p e r a t w e a t about 352’ C indicated both
by extrapolation of the l i t e r a t u r e data and by Henry’s law, and (c) the
solubility increases with decreasing hydrogen-to-carbon r a t i o H/C.
The following equation i s proposed for the prediction of t h e s o h i b i l i t y
of water a t any terqerature in nonolefinic hydrocarbons and petroleum
fractions :

log X = -(4200 E/C + lOSO)(l/T - O.OOl.6) + 2-00

x of water in hydrocarbon, mol percent

sol~ility

H/C hydrogen-to-cabon m i g h t r a t i o for hydrocarbon

T absolute
temperature, OK

This equation has been applied t o R f e w petroleum fractions ranging

f r o m gasoline to lubricating o l l , and a campariaon of the calculated
and experbentally determfned s o l f i i l i t i e s shows 821 agreement which i s
believed to be adeqpate f o r most engineering purposes.

The s o l u b i l i t y of water in hydrocarbon fuels i s of i n t e r e s t in

that mst fuels sre substantially saturated with mter at some stage
during t h e i r processing and storage. This water cazl betroublesome in
applications where a vehicle o r afrcraft is exposed t o temperatures
below the refueling tengperature and *re thewater w i l l separate out
a t the reduced temperatures. This is especially true in aircraft opera-
t i o n where the separated water is likely t o f r e e z e and block filters,
2 NACA RM E5ZD24

A literature search was therefore conducted at the NACA Lewis laboratory

f o r data on the s o l u b i l i t y of water i n pure hydrocarbons and in hydro-
oarbon fuels, and an attempt was made to correlate these data i n such a
way that a reasonably accurate prediction could be made of the solubility
of water i n any hydrocarbon fuel st any temperature. Presented herein
N
i s an analysis of the literature data and an eqwtion which appears
useful f o r the estimation of the. solubility of water i n hydrocarbon
fuels of low olefin content.

AmALysIS OF PURE HMlRQCARBON RATA

-Lfsted in table I are the 22 pure hydrocarbons, t h e t e q e r a t u r e

ranges, and the references from which solxibiuty data were compiled
together with the number of determinations reported i n each reference.
In the search some data may have been o m l o o k e d but certainly a major
portion of that available i n the l i t e r a t u r e was covered; a t o t a l of
227 data points i s presented. Ln cases where the solubility of m t e r
i n a single hydrocarbon was determinea at the same tenperature by
several investigators, considerable disagreement i n results was often
noted.For -le, v d u e s for the solubility of water i n benzene a t
20' C have been reported ranging from 0.185 mole percent (reference 1 2 )
t o 0.264 mole percent (reference 8). I n spite of such inconsistencies
as these, an attempt was made t o develop an eqmtion for predicting the
solubility of m t e r i n hydrocarbons which would s a t i s f y t h e experimental
observations within reasonable limits.

I n a study of the SolIibilIty of wster i n a naphtha, a kerosene,

and a lubricating oil at elevated temperaturssJ. . - p i m o l d and Kasch
.
(reference 20) presented a plot of the Henry s Sax const&nt. f o r the ..

naphtha as a function .of temperature. The equation used x88

where

K, Henry'6 law constant

px pressure of water v q o r Over two phase mixtures

+ water i n naphtha, m
ol fraction

Since the.figure presented by Griswold and-Xaech wae f o r naphtha alone,

--
Henry's law constants were calculated for all three petroleum fractions d

by use of the data of. reference 20, and the value8 for these constants
w e plotted against t h e t e q e r a t u r e i n figure 1. Although the scatter
 lyACA Rpll E52D24 3
.
of p0int.s i s f a i r l y g r e a t , t h e r e appears t o be an increase i n the values
- of these constants with increasing teqerature, probably because the
s o l u b i l i t y of water i n the hydrocarbons becomes q d t e appreciable (of
the order of 40 percent) a t higher teqeratures and the p a r t i a l p r e s s u r e
I
s of water i s no longer approxlmately equal t ot h e vapor pressure of pure
w
% water. The line f a i r e d through the Henry's constants i s s*stantially
the same as that drawn f o r naphtha in reference 20 but is extrapolated
to higherterqperatures. The vapor-pressure curve f o r pure water, also
shown i n figure 1, intercepts the line through the Henry's l a w constants
a t a pressure of about 2450 pounds per s q w e I n c h absolute and a tem-
perature of 352' C. If equation (1) i s assumed t o hold a t high t q e r -
atures, then this teqerature of intercept (352' C ) i s Ellso the c r i t i -
cal solution temperature of mter-hydrocarbon systems since & =
and xw nust be 1.O a t t h i s temperature. The fairing of the curve
through the Henryls l a w constat points is arbitrary; other curves
could be drawn which would field intercepts ranging from 2100 to
2700 pounds per square Fnch absolute. However, the water-vapor-
pressure curve i s s f l i c i e n t l y s t e e p i n this reglon that the c r i t i c &
solution temperature would o n l y range between 340° and S O o C.

The data from the references (table I> were tabulated and the solu-
b i l i t y of water, i n terms of l o g mole percent, was plotted against the
reciprocal of the absolute temperature.- It was found that straight
lines could be drawn through the data obtained from any single investi-
gation and that t h e s c a t t e r from the line usually was within the expec-
ted lFmits of exgerhental measurement. This linear r e l a t i o n between
the l o g of the s o l u b i l i t y of water and the reciprocal of the absolute
temperature agrees with the results presented in reference 4 where the
heat of solution of wter i n benzene was determined by use of the equa-
t ion
A H = R T2 (d IdTn N )
where

AJ3 molar heat of solution

R gas constant

T teqperature, 4c
N solute i n solvent at saturation, m
ol fraction

and which by rearranging and integrating becames

4 NACA RM E5ZD24

or
l o g N =kF + c

where k and C axe constanta f o r a given hydrocarbon. It was also

fauna that mostof the data justified a straight l i n e passlitlg through
100 mole percent solubility of water a t temperatures close t o the
352O C that w&s estimated from -figure 1 as being the critical solution
temperature f o r water-hydrocarbon systems. A few i l l u s t r a t i v e examples
of the solubility data referred t o in table I are p l o t t e d a s log con-
centration against the reciprocal of absolute t-eratke i n figure 2.
Figures 2(a) and 2(b), which are for toluene and xylene, respectively,
show that a considerable number of data points f a l l approximetely on a
straight Use passingthrough 3520 C where I/T % = 0.0016. The data
f o r benzene showed about the same degree of scatter as did those f o r
m y of the other hydrocarbons, although i n most cases the range of
temperatures covered was small. Figure 2( c) is a similar p l o t f o r
cyclohexane. Figure Z(d) f o r hwadiene 1,5 and diisobutene i s typical
of the plots obtained where only a very limited mount of data was
a v a i m l e . Methylcyclohexane and propane were t h e only compoundswhich
gave l o g solubility against 1/T plots i n w hi
ch the best straight line
d i d not clearly indicate a c r i t i c a l s o l u t i o n temperature of near 350° C .
The methylcyclohexane data are plotted i n figure Z(e), which shows the
correlation line that w a s forced f o r t h i s hydrocarbon. %'he propane
data are plotted i n figure Z ( f ) . It i s not known why these w t o com-
pounds do not follow the trends shown by other'hydrocarbonsj the data
f o r propane were not used i n adsequent correlations.

The equEttion f o r straight lines passing through the 3520 c: c r i t i -

cal solution tenperatwe on log concentrationagainst I/T sc-8 is

log X = M (1/T - 0.0016) + 2.00 (5)

where - - - . . . ." ..
- "
... -
- _.
"

x s o l u b i l i t y of water in hydrocarbon, mol percent

M slope of line, constant for -

each hydrocarbon

T temperature, OK

For most of the data, equation (5) can be used t o estimate the solubil-
ity of water i n a hyfkocarbon at any temperature once M has been
evaluated from a bw n s o l u b i l i t y a t a single temperature.
0

Since it i s also desirable t o be able t o estlnaate the s o l ~ i l i t y

of water i n hydrocarbons i n the absence of any such data, a relation
was sought between M and so= other hydrocarbon property. The
 NACA RM E52D24 5

slope M i s always negative and in general it w-as observed that M

had a lower value (solubility of water i s higher) f o r o l e f i n s and w o -
matics than for paraffins and cyclqparaffFns and, with the exception of
the olefins, there appears t o be a trend of increasing value f o r M
with increasing E/C r a t i o . EI table I1 are Usted the H/C ratios,
the d u e s f o r M, and the number of data points obtained from the
l i t e r a t u r e for each hydrocarbon. These data are plotted i n figure 3;
. the straight l i n e w-as faired through the aromatic, cyclopmaffin, and
paraffin points; the n-er of determinations represented by each
point was taken into account but the o l e f i n and d i o l e f i n data were
neglected. The points which U e f a r t h e s t from the l i n e a r e olefin and
diolefin points representing relatively few .determinations, This cor-
relation i s admittedly poor but ahould serve to permit a rough estfmate
of M and of the solubility of water i n hydrocarbon fuels, especially
if their olefin content is low.
The equation f o r t h e Une dram in figure 3 r e l a t i n g M t o the
H/C r a t i o is

M = -(4200 E/C + 1050) (61

.
and the equation r e l a t a the solubility of water in nonolefinic hydro-
carbons a t m v tenrperature then becomes

log X = -(4200 H/C + 1050) (UT - O.OOl.6) + 2.00 (77)

where

x s o l u b i l i t y of water, m
ol percent

H/C hydrogen-to-carbon weight r a t i o of hydrocarbon

T absolute teraperatuxe, %

The literature revealed a considerable amount of data on the solu-

b i l i t y of water in petroleum fractions. However, o n l y four sources were
found where measurements were made over a range of t q e r a t u r e s , and
these data are s h a m i n figure 4 on log concentration a g d n s t l/T scales.
Cmcentratione are s h a m i n the terms used i n tlie literature sources
(either w e i g h t or molar percent). The data presented i n reference I f o r
a kerosene and a paraffin oil-show a good linear r e l a t i o n between log con-
centration and reciprocal tezqperature.(fig. 4(a)). A similar plot of
Griswold and Kasch's data (reference 20) is presented i n figure 4(b) f o r
naphtha, kerosene, and lubricating o i l and similarly the data show excel-
lent agrement w i t h a straight line. Figure 4(c) is f o r four of t h e f i v e
6 NACA RM E52D24

gasolines investigated i n reference 2 1 wlth the f i f t h fuel omitted f o r

the sake of c l a r i t y . Although curved lines have been drawn for three
of these fuels, the s c a t t e r of data i s sufficient in the cases where
multiple determinations were made t o suggest that the deviation from
l i n e a r i t y might be due t o experimental inaccuracies. Figure 4 ( d ) pre-
sents data from reference 15 f o r a safety fuel (probably a high-boil-
alkylate) and again the deviation from a straight l i n e -isprobably
within the Umlts of experimental measurement.

Most of t h e l i t e r a t u r e data on the solub3lity of wateS i n petroleum

fractians i s i n weight percent terms; before these data can be compeed
with the values predicted by use of equation (7),both the mlecular
weight and the E/C r a t i o of the petroleum fractions m u s t be known.
Both of these properties can be estimated f r o m d i s t i l l a t i o n and gravity
by-we of the correlations presented in references 22 and 23. For most
of t h e l i t e r a t u r e on the solribility of water in petroleum fractions,
however, i n s u f f i c i e n t d i s t i l l a t i o n data are presented t o a l l o w these
correlations to be used. O n l y the petroleum fractions used in refer-
ence 2 1 and by Grimold andKasch i n reference 20 are sufficiently
w e l l described t o allow a comparison t o be made between the experimen-
t a l l y determined s o l u b i l i t i e s and thosecalculated by m e of equation (7) . I)

This comparison i s given i n table 111, along with the average boiling
points, gravities, and estimated moiecular irdghts &nd H/C r a t i o s for
the fractions. . ..

Listed at the bottom o f table Iu:axe the average differences

between calculated and experimental solubilities for various portions
of the data given i n the table. The average dlfference for all the
data i s 56 percent; for the data presented in reference 20, 19 percent;
and f o r the data presented i n reference 21, 136 percent. The largest
differences me found with the fuels reported in reference 2 1 at the
higher temperatures and the experimental values show a much smaller
increase in solubility with increasing temperature than that predicted
by equation (7) 3 there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that these data may be in error
as suggested by the f a c t that the solzibility of water in fuels 10 and
19 i s quite d i f f e r e n t even though the fuels have. quite similar physi-
CELL properties. ~f the five values determined at 5 0 ~c in reference 21
are omitted from the 47 values considered, -the'aiierage difference is
then o n l y 30 percent.

The c r i t i c a l s o l u t i o n temperature of 352' C proposed herein i e

above t h e c r i t i c a l temperature of lpasy of the hydrocarbons studied and #

has no real physical significance. It is a l s o very close t o the 374O C

c r i t i c a l temperature of water and the value 374O C (l/T OK = O.oOl.55)
 HACA RM E52D24 7

could have been used in equation (4) without any appreciable change in
. the predicted sol&ilities of water in hydrocarbons. However, the
assumed miscibility a t either of these temperatures i s not believed to
be of any fundamental significance and the proposed value of 352O C has
been used only as an empirical focal point to aid i n t h e f a k i n g of
straight lines through a considerable amount of s a n e w h a t scattered data.

The v a l i d i t y of using a straight-line relation between l o g concen-

t r a t i o n snd S/T through Oo C may be I n doubt. The Henry's law
approach suggests that a s t r a i g h t l i n e should be used only over the
temperature range where there i s a linear r e l a t i o n between the log of
the vapor presssure of water and the reciprocal of the absolute tem-
perature. In the steam-water-icesystem t h i s r e l a t i o n does hold down
t o Oo C, but there i s a change of slqpe a t the freezing point. However,
in the very d i l u t e solutions present a t this Etnd lower temperatures,
the great dilution of water m l e c u l e s i n the hydrocarbon environment
may yield a condition where the water vapor pressure against t m e r a -
ture curve follows that of supercooled water t o tenperatures w e l l below
the normal freezing point of water. Under this c o n a t i o n t h e log con-
centration would be l i n e a r wdth 1/T across the Oo C n or
m al freezing
point. As indicated, for example, by the w at
e r - in toluene data plotted
i n figure 2(a), the determination of t h e s o l ~ i b i l i t yof water a t . l o w
temperatures i s not sufficiently precise to support t h i s p o u t . How-
ever, it i s of minor p r a c t i c a l importance since the concentrations of
water i n hy&cocarbons are extremely low below '0 C in any case.
The comparison between calculated and experimentally determined
s o l u b i l i t i e s which i s presented in table 111 shows the calculated solu-
b i l i t i e s t o be generally higher than those determined by e x p e r a n t .
The constants in equation (7) were derived from pure hydrocarbon data
and a b e t t e r agreement would have been obtained for the predicted solu-
b i l i t i e s f o r the petroleum fractions If a somewhEtt larger Value had
been used f o r t h e f i r s t constant of t h i s equation. However, it was
f e l t that there were insufficient data available on the s o l u b i l i t y of
water i n w e l l defined petroleum fractions to j u s t i f y a change in t h i s
constent, which was based on a considerably larger amount of pure com-
pound data.

A study of the d ak found in the l i t e r a t u r e , on the solubility of

wat& i n hydrocerbons has sham that:

1. For a given hydrocarbon, there is a l i n e a r e l a t i o n between

the log of concentration and the reciprocal of the absolute tempera-
ture, and the solribility increases with increasing teqerature.
a HACA RM E52D24

2. For most hydrocarbons, t h i s linear relation predicts a c r i t i c a l

solution temgerature of about 352O C . -
3. I n general the solubility of water i n hydrocarbons increases
with decreasing hydrogen-to-carbon weight r a t i o of the hydrocarbon.

4 . The solubility of water any nanolefinic hydrocarbon a t any

, i n
f
temperature can be predicted with falr accuracy by use of the equation

log X e: -(4200 H/C + 1050)(1/T - O.OOl6) + 2.00

where
. .

x s o l u b i l i t y of water i n hydrocarbon, m
ol percent

H/C hydrogen-to-carbon weight.r a t i o i n hydrocarbon

T absolute temperature, OH

5. The foregoing equation may be used t o predict the solubility-of

water i n those petroleum fractions for which there axe sufficient data
i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . t o permit estimates t o be made of t h e H/C ratio.
For these fractions the average difference between predicted and exper-
imentally determined s o l u b i l i t i e s was 56 percent of the amount-found by
experiment. However, the la;rgest differences were all founda l the
comgarison of the results of one investLgator, a t one temperature. If
these cases &re omitted (5 out of 47 cases), the average difference
between calculated and experhentally determined solribilities becomes
only 30 percent of the amount found by experiment.Accuracies of this
order axe believed t o be adequate f o r mst engineering purposes and
are, i n any case, coqarable with the accuracies w hih have often been
c
encountered experimentally.

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory

National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics
Cleveland, Ohio

1. GroschufP, E. : Uber die L i j s l i c h k e i t von Wasser i n Benzol, petrolem,

Paraffinol. Zeits. Electrochemie, Bd. 1 7 , 1911, pp. 348-354.
 25 NACA RM E52D24 9

2. Tarassenkow, D. N., una Poloshinzem, E . R.: Liislichkeit des

- Wassers i n Benzol, Toluol und Cyclohexan. Berichte, A b t . . B ,
Jahrg. IXV,Heft 2, Feb. 3, 1932, S . 184-186.

cu 3. Staveley, L. A. K., Jeffes, J. E. E., and Moy, J. A. E.: The

Hydrogen Bond and'the Hydration of Organic Molecules. Trans.
E Faraday SOC., vol. 39, 1943, pp. 5-13.

4. Staveley, L. A. K. ,
Johns, R. G. S., and Wore, B. C. : Solutions
of Alcohols in Non-Polar Solvents. Part I. The Solubility and
Heat of Solution of Water i n Dilute Solutions of Alcohols i n
Benzene. Jour. Chem. Soc., 1951, pp. 2516-2523.

5. Clifford, C h a r l e s W.: The Solubility of Water i n Gasoline and in

Certain Other Organic L i q u i d s , Determined by the Calcium Chloride
Method. Ind. and Eng. Chem., vol. 13, no. 7, July 1921, pp. 631-
632.

6 . Rosenbaum, Chester K., and Walton, James H.: The Use of Calcium
Eydr3.de for the Determfnatlon of the Solubility of Water In
Benzene,Carbon Tetrachloride and Toluene. Jour. Am. Chem. kc.,
v o l . 52,no.9 , Sept. 1930, pp. 3568-3573.

7. Uspenskii, S. P. : Mutual Solubility of Some Liquid Fuels and

Water. Chem. Abstracts, vol. 24, no. 10, May 20, 1930, pp. 2574-
2575. (Abstract frm Neftyanoe Khozyaistvo, vol. 17, L929,
p ~ 713-717.
. )

8. H i l l , Arthur E. : The Mutual Sol&ilfty of Liquids, II. The

Solubility of Water i n B e n z e n e . Jour. Am. Chem. SOC. , vol. 45,
no. 5, May 1923, p-p. ll51-U55.

9 . B e l l , Ronald P. : The Heat of Solution of Water Vapour i n V a r i o u s

Solvents. Jour. Chem. Soc., 1932, pp. 2505-2911-

10. Berkengeim, T. I.: Application of the Fisher Method f o r the Deter-

mination of the Solxbility of Water in Organic Cmounds and i n
Their " t u r e s a t Various Temperatures. Chem. Abstracts, vol. 40,
no. 22, Nov. 20, 1946, p. 6961. (Abstract from Zavodskaya L&.,
vol. 10, 1941, p. 592.)
U. Seidell, Atherton: Solubilities of Inorganic and Metal Organic
Comounds, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. 3d ed., vol. I, 1941,
pp. 368 and 543.
12. Black, Cllne, Joris, George G., and Taylor, Hugh S.: The Solubility
ofWater i n Hydrocarbons. Jour. Chem. Physics,vol. 16, no. 5,
May 1948, p ~ 537-543.
.
10 HACA RM E5ZD24

.
13. Williams, C G. : Fuels and Lubricants f o r Aero Gas Turbines.
Jour. Inst. Petroleum, vol. 33,no. 281, May 1947, pp. 267-306.

14. Lane, W. H.: Determination of the Solubility of Styrene i n Water

and of Water i n Styrene.Ind. and Eng. Chem,.
Anal. ed., vol. 18,
no. 5 , May 1946, pp. 295-296.

15. Burtle, Jerome I. : The S o l a i l i t y of Water in Hydrocarbons and

Gasolines. EIRL Rep. No. P-1573, Naval Res. Lab. (WashingLon, D.C. )
Nov. 10, 1939.
16. McKetta, John J., Jr., and Katz, Donald L.: F%ase Relations of
Hydrocarbon-Water Systems. Tech.Pub. 2123, Petroleum Tech. 10,
no. 1, A.I.M.E. 1947.

17. Perry, Charles W. : Determining Dissolved Water i n Liquified Gases.

Ind. and Eng. Chem., Anal. ed., vol. 10, no. 9, Sept. 15, 1938,
pp. 513-514.

, , ,
18. R e a m e r , 3. H., O l d 8 R. E. Sage, B. H. and Lacey, W. H. : Phase
Equilibria i n Hydrocarbon Systems. Compositions of the Coexisting
Phases of n-Butane-WaterSystem i n the Three-Phase Region. Ind.
and-Eng. dEiem., vol. 36, no. 4, April 1944, pp. 381-383.

19. F k e r , H. : Die Wasserl8slichkeit i n Hmologen Reihen. Berichte,

Abt. B., J*g. LvfI, NO* 3, -2 12, 1924, S. 510-515.

20. Griswold, John, a;ad Kasch, 3 . E.: Hydrocarbon-Water Solubilities

a t Elevated Temperatures and Pressures. Ind. and Ehg. Chem.,
v o l . 34, no. 7, July 1942, pp. 804-806.

21. Aldrich, Elfzabeth W. r Solubility of Water i n Aviation W o l i n e .

Ind. and Eng. Chem., Anal.ea., vol. 3, no. 4, Oct. 15, 1931, -
pg. 348-354.

22. Watson, K. M., and Nelson, E. F.t liuprmed Methods f o r Approxi-

mating C r i t i c a l and Thermal Properties of Petroleum Fractions.
Ind. and Eng. Chem., vol. 25, no. 8, Aug. U33, pp. 880-887.

23. Watson, K. M. : Correlation of -.the Physical Properties of

Petroleum. Chap. i n v o l . II, The 8cience of Petroleum,
A. E. Ilunstan, A. W . Rash, Benjamin T. Brooks, and Henry T i z a r d ,
editors, Odord University Press, 1938, p-p. 1377-1387.
 NACA RM E52D24

Reference Determinations Temp”

reported ture range
C°C
” 1
cu
w Benzene 7 3 - 72
cu 2 9 5 - 73
0
3 6 25 - 71
4 14 23 - 73
5 5 20- 55
6 6 10 - 60
7 1 X)
8 7 5 - 70
9 1 20
10 5 10 -50
ll 10 0 - 80
12 3 10 -26
13 5 4 - K)
Stxrene l4 5 6 - 51
Toluene 2 l2 - 9 - 93
6 6 0 - 50
ll 6 - l o - 40
15 4 - 3 4 - 43
Xylene 2 1 20
7 2
5
10 -25
15 - 3 4 - 43
Cyclohexane 2 6 14 -53
10 2 20- 50
l2 1 20
l5 5 - 3 4 - 43
16 8 27 -91
17 I 38
-
n-Butane l2
la
8
8
5 - 21
38 -
144
~~

Iaobutane 12 4 7 - 21
Butene-1 I2 5 6 - 22
Butene-2 l2 5 7 - 21
Isobutene 7 6 - 21
Butadiene -1.3 6 7 - 21
-
n-Pentane 5 6 - 25
Isopentane I2 10 6 - 22
-
n-Hexane 12 1 20
19 1 Il
Hexadiene-1, 5 2 14- 20
-n-Heptane 4 l0 -
25
19 1 Il
Heptene-1 l2 4 lo -
21
-
n-0ctm.e l2
19
1
1 ll
20

2,2,4-llfrimethylpentane lo 4 - 2 - 40
15 5 - 3 4 - 43
Diisobutene 15 2 - 34,43
12 NACA BM E52D24

corqpouna H/C
ratio r Nmiber

Investi- Data
T Slope
M
gators pointe

Benzene :. . 0.083 65 -1420

Styrene .083 5 -1370
Toluene .092 28 -1450
Xylene .lo4 8 -1450
Cyclohexane .168 9 -1850
Methyl cyclohexane .168 5 -1710
n-Butane .209 16
Isobutane .209 4 L9ao
t
Butene -1 .168 5 r
Butene-2 .X8 5
.Bobutene .168 7 tl=O
Butadiene -1,3 .126 6 -1460
n-Pentane .201 5
Isopentme .201 10 1-1880
L-3680
--
n-Hexane .197 2
n-Hexadiene-lY5 .140 2 -1310
-n-Heptane .192 5 -1720
-n-Heptene-1 .168 4 -1220
-n-0ctane .188 2 -1910
2y2,4-Trimethyl .I88 9 -la20
pentane
Diisobutene .168 2 -1770

.
 NACA RM E52D24 l3

TdBLE I11 - COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND EXPEFUKENTAUY

SOLUBILITlEs OF WATBR I N PETROLEUM FRfiC!KtOKS

T S o l u b i l i t y of water
Experl- calcu- D i f f erenc
nental lated percent o
(mol (mol Dxperimen
2ercent.j percent) tal value
10 0.058 0.029 -50
30 .073 .078 7
-
50 -088 -185 110
10 0.027 0.030 11
30 .035 -080 128
50 -039 .188 382

21 I 187 10
30
50
-
10
0.037'
-036
-058'
0 -030'
0.038
.098
-226
0 -035
3
172
290
17
30 -095' .091 -4
-
50 .114€ .211 85
10 0.017 0.030 76
30 .028E -080 184
50 -030 -188 527

I
159 4.97 5.48 10
186 8.96 9.53 7
203 11.91 13.1 10
2o 342 222 16 18
I 18.1 12
112 1.24 1.95 57
135 2.18 3 -48 60
169 4.98 7.33 47
177 5.89 8.59 46
185 7.39 10 .o 35
19I 7.98 11.2 40
203 9 .oo 13.9 54
207 12.14 14.9 23
216 14.94 17.3 16
228 19.06 21.0 10
251 23.04 29.6 29
264
- 34.97 35.5 2
124. 2.52 2.83 12
137 3.19 3.86 21
151 5 -38 5.28 -2
189 9 -53 11:2 17
226 16.21 20 - 9 29
208 16.29 15.6. -4
215 17.34 17.5 1
215 18.29 17.5 -4
250 28.86 29 .8 3
259 30 - 4 0 33.8 , 11
267 33.42 37.7 13
272 35.68 40.2 13
269 37.48 38.7 3
273 37.77 40.7 8
274 40.42 91.3 2
281 43.44 45 -2 4
-
%Ote
Average
- Average of 'multiple determlnations.
differencen I a l l aata, 56 percent
w7
. Average
Average
Average
d i f f e r e n c e i n r e f e r e n c e 20 data, 19 percent
a f f e r e n c e i n r e f e r e n c e 21 Uata, 136 percent
d i f f e r e n c e I n r e f e r e n c e 21 10' C data, 31 percent
Average dlfferencen I reference 21 30a C data, 99 percent
Average d i f f e r e n c e i n r e f e r e n c e 2 1 50° C data, 279 percent
Average differencen I a l l data except reference 21 a t 50a C, 30 percent
14 NACA RM E52D24

C
t
k
C

Temperature, OC

I I I I I I I I I - "

240 220 200 190 180 175 170 165160 l 5 5 d.cji ---

Reciprocal of absolute temperature, ID, %

Figure 1. - Hemy8 law conetaut and vapor preesuru of water a8 functions of
tempurature.
.
 w

.
 .
(b) xylene.

Figure 2. - Continued. Solubility of water i n pure hydrocarboas a8

function of temperature.
3s NACA RM E52D24 17

Reciprocal of absolute tenrperature, 1/T, %

’
( c ) cyclohexane.

Figure 7. - C o n tas
i n u e d . Solubility of ua€er in hydrocarbons
function of temperature..
 c

"
.

n
.002

.m1
15 20 25 30 35 40 -lo4
Reciprocal of absolute temperature, 1/T, %
(a) Ekxadieue 1,5 and diisobutbne.

Figure 2. - Contlwsd. Bclubillty of water in pure hgdracerbma 8 B

function of tamperatun.
NACA RM E52D24 19

.4

Reciprocal of a b s o l u t e t e q e r s t u r e , 1/T, ?I

(e) Methylcyclohe8lne.

Figure 2. - Continued. Solubility of water in pure hydrocarbons 8s

function of temperature.
20 NACA RM E523324

. . ..
t& 1

(PI Propane.
Figure 2. - ConcluBed. Solubility of vater in pure hydrocarbane
e a function of ternperttture.
NACA RE.4 E52D24 21

I@drogen-to-carbm r a t i o , H/C

Figure 3. -Humbere
Slope of solubility correlation line as funation of hydrocarbon H/C
i n a c a t e nuntbur of d
b
em
t
rno
a
i
n
lerepresented by each point.
t
ratio.
22 NACA RM E52D24

I -%

0 Kerosene
0 Paraffin oil

t
26 28 90
C
\
-
3€
Reciprocal of absolute temperature, L/T, %
( a ) Kerosene and paraffin oil, reference 1.

Figure 4 . - Solubility of uater in petroleum fractions as function of temperature.

NACA RM E52D24 23

.0-4
Reciprocal of absolute temperature, 1/T, "K
(b) Naphtha, kerosene, and lubricating oil, reference 20.

Figure 4. - Continued. Solubility of xater in petroleum fractions as function

of temperature.
24 NACA RM Em24

30 31 32 33 51 35 56
.S NACA RM E52D24 25

Reciprocal of absolute temperature, l/!e, %

(a) safety fuel, reference IS.

Figure 4. - Conclu&ed. Solubility of water in petroleum fractions ns function of
temperature.

.
NACh-LmglW - 7-10-62 - roOa
f