Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Zenzicubic (talk | contribs) m Fix tone of this description |
||
(37 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Thermodynamic model}}
The '''Joback method''', often named '''Joback–Reid method''', [[Prediction|predicts]] eleven important and commonly used pure component thermodynamic properties from molecular structure only. It is named after Kevin G. Joback in 1984<ref>{{cite thesis|last=Joback |first=K. G.|date=1984 |title=A Unified Approach to Physical Property Estimation Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques |url=https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15374/12352302-MIT.pdf?sequence=2 |type=MS |publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}</ref> and developed it further with Robert C. Reid.<ref>Joback K. G., Reid R. C., "Estimation of Pure-Component Properties from Group-Contributions", ''Chem. Eng. Commun.'', 57, 233–243, 1987.</ref> The Joback method is an extension of the [[Lydersen method]]<ref>Lydersen A. L., "Estimation of Critical Properties of Organic Compounds", University of Wisconsin College Engineering, ''Eng. Exp. Stn. Rep.'' 3, Madison, Wisconsin, 1955.</ref> and uses very similar groups, formulas, and parameters for the three properties the Lydersen already supported ([[critical temperature]], [[critical pressure]], critical volume).
Joback and Reid extended the range of supported properties, created new parameters and modified slightly the formulas of the old Lydersen method.▼
=== Group-contribution method ===
[[Image:Gruppenbeitragsmethodenprinzip.png|thumb|Principle of a Group Contribution Method]]▼
The Joback method is a [[group contribution method]]. These kind of methods use basic structural information of a chemical molecule like a list of simple functional groups, adds parameters to these functional groups, and calculates thermophysical and transport properties as a function of the sum of group parameters. ▼
▲[[Image:Gruppenbeitragsmethodenprinzip.
Joback assumes that there are no interactions between the groups and therefore only uses additive contributions and no contributions for interactions between groups. Other group contribution methods, especially methods like [[UNIFAC]], which estimate mixture properties like activity coefficients, use both simple additive group parameters and group interaction parameters. The big advantage of using only simple group parameters is the small number of needed parameters. The number of needed group interaction parameters gets very high for an increasing number of groups (1 for two groups, 3 for three groups, 6 for four groups, 45 for ten groups and twice as much if the interactions are not symmetric.).▼
▲The Joback method is a [[group
▲Joback assumes that there are no interactions between the groups, and therefore only uses additive contributions and no contributions for interactions between groups. Other group
Nine of the properties are single temperature-independent values, mostly estimated by a simple sum of group contribution plus an addend.
Two of the estimated properties are temperature-dependent: the ideal
▲Joback extended the range of supported properties, created new parameters and modified slightly the formulas of the old Lydersen method.
▲==Model Strengths and Weaknesses==
===Strengths===
Line 25 ⟶ 22:
The popularity and success of the Joback method mainly originates from the single group list for all properties. This allows one to get all eleven supported properties from a single analysis of the molecular structure.
The Joback method additionally uses a very simple and easy to assign group scheme, which makes the method usable
===Weaknesses===
[[Image:JobackNormalBoilingPointSystematicError.png|thumb|Systematic
Newer developments of estimation methods<ref>Constantinou L., Gani R., "New Group Contribution Method for Estimating Properties of Pure Compounds", ''AIChE J.'', 40(10), 1697–1710, 1994.</ref><ref>Nannoolal Y., Rarey J., Ramjugernath J., "Estimation of pure component properties Part 2. Estimation of critical property data by group contribution", ''Fluid Phase Equilib.'', 252(1–2), 1–27, 2007.</ref> have shown that the quality of the Joback method is limited. The original authors already stated themselves in the original article abstract: "High accuracy is not claimed, but the proposed methods are often as or more accurate than techniques in common use today."
The list of groups don't cover many common molecules sufficiently. Especially aromatic compounds are not differentiated from normal ring containing components. This is a severe problem because aromatic and aliphatic components differ strongly.▼
▲The list of groups
The data base Joback and Reid used for obtaining the group parameters was rather small and covered only a limited number of different molecules. The best coverage has been achieved for normal boiling points (438 components) and the worst for heat of fusion (155 components). Current developments that can use data banks like the [[Dortmund Data Bank]] or the DIPPR data base have a much broader coverage.▼
▲The data base Joback and Reid used for obtaining the group parameters was rather small and covered only a limited number of different molecules. The best coverage has been achieved for normal boiling points (438 components), and the worst for
The formula used for the prediction of the normal boiling point shows another problem. Joback assumed a constant contribution of added groups in homologous series like the [[alkane]]s. This doesn't describe the real behavior of the normal boiling points correctly.<ref>Stein S.E., Brown R.L., "Estimation of Normal Boiling Points from Group Contributions", ''J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.'' 34, 581–587 (1994)</ref> Instead of the constant contribution a decrease of the contribution with increasing number of groups must be applied. The chosen formula of the Joback method leads to high deviations for large and small molecules and an acceptable good estimation only for mid-sized components.▼
▲The formula used for the prediction of the normal boiling point shows another problem. Joback assumed a constant contribution of added groups in homologous series like the [[alkane]]s. This doesn't describe the real behavior of the normal boiling points correctly.<ref>Stein S. E., Brown R. L., "Estimation of Normal Boiling Points from Group Contributions", ''J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.'' 34, 581–587 (1994).</ref> Instead of the constant contribution, a decrease of the contribution with increasing number of groups must be applied. The chosen formula of the Joback method leads to high deviations for large and small molecules and an acceptable good estimation only for mid-sized components.
== Formulas ==
In the following formulas ''G<sub>i</sub>'' denotes a group contribution. ''G<sub>i</sub>'' are counted for every single available group. If a group is present multiple times, each occurrence is counted separately.▼
▲In the following formulas G<sub>i</sub> denotes a group contribution. G<sub>i</sub> are counted for every single available group. If a group is present multiple times each occurrence is counted separately.
===Normal
<math>
===Melting
<math>
===Critical
<math>
This critical
===Critical
<math>
where ''N''<sub>
===Critical
<math>
===Heat of
<math>H_\text{formation}[\text{kJ}/\text{mol}]
===Gibbs
<math>G_\text{formation}[\text{kJ}/\text{mol}]
===Heat
<math>C_P[\text{J}/(\text{mol
The Joback method uses a four
===Heat of
<math>\Delta H_\text{vap}[\text{kJ}/\text{mol}]
===Heat of
<math>\Delta H_\text{fus}[\text{kJ}/\text{mol}]
===Liquid
<math>\
where ''M''<sub>w</sub>
The method uses a two
== Group
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Group
! ''T''<sub>c</sub>
! ''P''<sub>c</sub>
! ''V''<sub>c</sub>
! ''T''<sub>b</sub>
! ''T''<sub>m</sub>
! ''H''<sub>form</sub>
! ''G''<sub>form</sub>
! ''a''
! ''b''
! ''c''
! ''d''
! ''H''<sub>fusion</sub>
! ''H''<sub>vap</sub>
! ''η<sub>a</sub>''
! ''η<sub>b</sub>''
|-
|
| colspan="3" | Critical-state
| colspan="2" | Temperatures<br>of
| colspan="2" | Chemical
| colspan="4" | Ideal-gas
| colspan="2" | Enthalpies<br>of
| colspan="2" | Dynamic
|-
Line 135 ⟶ 126:
|-
|
| 0.0141
| −0.0012
Line 153 ⟶ 144:
|-
|
| 0.0189
| 0.0000
Line 171 ⟶ 162:
|-
| >
| 0.0164
| 0.0020
Line 185 ⟶ 176:
| 0.749
| 1.691
|
| 1.187
Line 207 ⟶ 198:
|-
|
| 0.0113
| −0.0028
Line 225 ⟶ 216:
|-
| =CH−
| 0.0129
| −0.0006
Line 261 ⟶ 252:
|-
|
| 0.0026
| 0.0028
Line 279 ⟶ 270:
|-
|
| 0.0027
| −0.0008
Line 297 ⟶ 288:
|-
| ≡C−
| 0.0020
| 0.0016
Line 318 ⟶ 309:
|-
|
| 0.0100
| 0.0025
Line 336 ⟶ 327:
|-
| >
| 0.0122
| 0.0004
Line 372 ⟶ 363:
|-
| =CH−
| 0.0082
| 0.0011
Line 411 ⟶ 402:
|-
|
| 0.0111
| −0.0057
Line 429 ⟶ 420:
|-
|
| 0.0105
| −0.0049
Line 447 ⟶ 438:
|-
|
| 0.0133
| 0.0057
Line 465 ⟶ 456:
|-
|
| 0.0068
| −0.0034
Line 486 ⟶ 477:
|-
|
| 0.0741
| 0.0112
Line 504 ⟶ 495:
|-
|
| 0.0240
| 0.0184
Line 522 ⟶ 513:
|-
|
| 0.0168
| 0.0015
Line 540 ⟶ 531:
|-
|
| 0.0098
| 0.0048
Line 558 ⟶ 549:
|-
| >C=O (
| 0.0380
| 0.0031
Line 594 ⟶ 585:
|-
| O=
| 0.0379
| 0.0030
Line 612 ⟶ 603:
|-
|
| 0.0791
| 0.0077
Line 630 ⟶ 621:
|-
|
| 0.0481
| 0.0005
Line 648 ⟶ 639:
|-
|
| 0.0143
| 0.0101
Line 669 ⟶ 660:
|-
|
| 0.0243
| 0.0109
Line 723 ⟶ 714:
|-
| >
| 0.0169
| 0.0074
Line 741 ⟶ 732:
|-
|
| 0.0255
| -0.0099
Line 759 ⟶ 750:
|-
|
| 0.0085
| 0.0076
Line 777 ⟶ 768:
|-
|
| n. a.
| n. a.
Line 795 ⟶ 786:
|-
|
| 0.0496
| −0.0101
Line 813 ⟶ 804:
|-
|
| 0.0437
| 0.0064
Line 834 ⟶ 825:
|-
|
| 0.0031
| 0.0084
Line 852 ⟶ 843:
|-
|
| 0.0119
| 0.0049
Line 870 ⟶ 861:
|-
|
| 0.0019
| 0.0051
Line 889 ⟶ 880:
|}
== Example
[[Image:AcetonGruppen.PNG]]
[[Acetone]] (
{| class="wikitable"
|
| colspan="2" |
| colspan="2" |
|
|
Line 910 ⟶ 901:
| Group value
| <math>\sum G_i</math>
| Estimated
| Unit
|-
| ''T''<sub>c</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">0.0141</div>
Line 924 ⟶ 915:
|-
| ''P''<sub>c</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−1.20E−03</div>
Line 934 ⟶ 925:
|-
| ''V''<sub>c</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">65.0000</div>
Line 941 ⟶ 932:
| <div align="right">192.0000</div>
| <div align="right">209.5000</div>
| <div align="right">
|-
| ''T''<sub>b</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">23.5800</div>
Line 954 ⟶ 945:
|-
| ''T''<sub>m</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−5.1000</div>
Line 964 ⟶ 955:
|-
| ''H''<sub>formation</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−76.4500</div>
Line 974 ⟶ 965:
|-
| ''G''<sub>formation</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−43.9600</div>
Line 984 ⟶ 975:
|-
| ''C''<sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">1.95E+01</div>
Line 993 ⟶ 984:
|-
| ''C''<sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−8.08E−03</div>
Line 1,002 ⟶ 993:
|-
| ''C''<sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">1.53E−04</div>
Line 1,011 ⟶ 1,002:
|-
| ''C''<sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−9.67E−08</div>
Line 1,020 ⟶ 1,011:
|-
| ''C''<sub>p</sub>
| colspan="5" | <div align="right">at ''T'' = 300
| <div align="right">75.3264</div>
| <div align="right">J/(mol
|-
| ''H''<sub>fusion</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">0.9080</div>
Line 1,036 ⟶ 1,027:
|-
| ''H''<sub>vap</sub>
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">2.3730</div>
Line 1,042 ⟶ 1,033:
| <div align="right">8.9720</div>
| <div align="right">13.7180</div>
| <div align="right">29.
| <div align="right">kJ/mol</div>
|-
| ''η<sub>a</sub>''
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">548.2900</div>
Line 1,055 ⟶ 1,046:
|-
| ''η<sub>b</sub>''
| <div align="right">2</div>
| <div align="right">−1.7190</div>
Line 1,064 ⟶ 1,055:
|-
| ''η''
| colspan="5" | <div align="right">at ''T'' = 300
| <div align="right">0.0002942</div>
| <div align="right">Pa
|}
Line 1,076 ⟶ 1,067:
== External links ==
* [https://www.chemeo.com/predict?smiles=CCCC Online molecular drawing and property estimation tool with the Joback method]
* [http://ddbonline.ddbst.de/OnlinePropertyEstimation/OnlinePropertyEstimation.exe Online property estimation with the Joback method]
[[Category:Physical chemistry]]
[[Category:Thermodynamic models]]
|