Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

Viscosity of aqueous Na2SO4 solutions at temperatures from

298 to 573 K and at pressures up to 40 MPa
I.M. Abdulagatova,∗ , A. Zeinalovab , N.D. Azizovb
a Institute for Geothermal Problems of the Dagestan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
367003 Makhachkala, Shamilya Str. 39-A, Dagestan, Russia
b Azerbaijan State Oil Academy, Baku 370601, Azerbaijan

Received 24 August 2004; received in revised form 20 October 2004; accepted 21 October 2004

Abstract

Viscosities of nine (1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 23, and 26) mass% of aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions have been measured in the liquid phase with a
capillary flow technique. Measurements were made at five isobars 0.1, 10, 20, 30, and 40 MPa. The range of temperatures was from 298.15
to 573.5 K. The total uncertainty of viscosity, pressure, temperature, and concentration measurements was estimated to be less than 1.5%,
0.05%, 15 mK, and 0.015%, respectively. The reliability and accuracy of the experimental method was confirmed with measurements on pure
water for four selected isobars 5, 10, 20, and 40 MPa and at temperatures between 296.7 and 573.7 K. The experimental and calculated values
from IAPWS (International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam) formulation for the viscosity of pure water show excellent
agreement within their experimental uncertainty (AAD = 0.41%). The temperature, pressure, and concentration dependences of the relative
viscosity (η/η0 ) where η0 is the viscosity of pure water are studied. The values of the viscosity A-, B-, and D-coefficients of the extended
Jones–Dole equation for the relative viscosity (η/η0 ) of aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of temperature are studied. The maximum of
the B-coefficient near the 323 K isotherm has been found. The behavior of the concentration dependence of the relative viscosity of aqueous
Na2 SO4 solutions is discussed in terms of the modern theory of transport phenomena in electrolyte solutions. The derived values of the
viscosity A- and B-coefficients were compared with the results predicted by Falkenhagen–Dole theory of electrolyte solutions and calculated
with the ionic B-coefficient data. Different theoretical models for the viscosity of electrolyte solutions were stringently tested with new accurate
measurements on aqueous Na2 SO4 . The quality and predictive capability of the various models was studied. The measured values of viscosity
were directly compared with the data reported in the literature by other authors.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aqueous solutions; B-coefficient; Capillary viscometer; Sodium sulfate; Viscosity; Water

1. Introduction sulfate is a common product of hydrothermal waste destruc-

The association and hydrolysis of the sodium sulfate in
aqueous solutions is important in many industrial processes
such as material transport, solid deposition, corrosion in
steam generators, and electrical power boilers [1,2]. Sodium
∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Physical and Chemical Proper-
ties Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway,
Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA. Tel.: +1 303 497 4027;
fax: +1 303 497 5224.
E-mail address: ilmutdin@boulder.nist.gov (I.M. Abdulagatov).
tion by supercritical water oxidation. Aqueous Na2 SO4 is
also an important constituent of natural subsurface brines and
sea floor vent fluids. In addition, aqueous Na2 SO4 is a prime
representative of 1:2 charge-type electrolytes. Knowledge of
the pressure, temperature, and composition dependence of
viscosity of aqueous salt solutions is essential to understand
a variety of problems in a number of technological and en-
gineering applications such as environmental applications,
treatment of wastewater, geothermal power, and hydrother-
mal formation of minerals. Characterization of the mass and
heat transfer phenomena in the hydrothermal environments,

0378-3812/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2004.10.028
58 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

design calculation, and flue and vent gases often requires
modeling of electrolyte solutions. The viscosity of aqueous
electrolyte solutions is of importance in many industrial and
scientific applications because the long-range electrostatic
interactions (coulombic forces between ions) present cause
difficulty in describing ionic solutions [3–10]. Electrostatic
interactions determine thermodynamic and transport proper-
ties of ionic electrolyte solutions.
In this paper, we report new precise viscosity measure-
ments for aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions over wide ranges of
temperature, pressure, and composition using a capillary flow
technique, which allows accurate measurements at high tem-
peratures and high pressures [11–16]. The research presented
in this paper is part of a continuing series of measurements of
transport properties of aqueous solutions at high temperatures
and high pressures [11–13,15,16].
2. Literature review of the experimental viscosity
data and correlations for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions
Table 1 shows the available viscosity data sets for
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions. In this table, the first author, the
year published, and uncertainty are given together with
the method employed the temperature, pressure, and con-
centration ranges. The available viscosity data sets for
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions included the measurements with
various techniques such as capillary flow, oscillating-disk vis-
cometer, and falling-body. Most of the data were obtained by
the capillary technique. Most of the data sets cover very lim-
ited ranges of temperature, pressure, and concentration. A
literature survey revealed that all previous reported viscosity
data for aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions were performed at atmo-
spheric pressure except the data reported by Pepinov et al.
[26,27] and Correla and Kestin [28]. Thus, the main objec-
tives of this work are: (1) to provide reliable experimental
viscosity data for aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions at high temper-
atures (up to 573 K) and high pressures (up to 40 MPa); (2)
to test the quality of previous studies by comprehensive com-
parisons all of the available data sets; (3) to test the predictive
capability of the various theoretical models for the viscosity
of electrolyte solutions with new accurate measurements on
aqueous Na2 SO4 . The present results considerably expand
the temperature, pressure, and concentration ranges in which
viscosity data for aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions are available.
A brief analysis some of the correlations of the viscosity of
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions is given below.
Korosi and Fabuss [23] represented measured values of
viscosity for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions as a linear function of
the logarithm of the viscosity of water η0 (mPa s)
η
log10 = A0 + B0 log10 η0 , (1)
η0
where the temperature independent constants A0 and B0 were
expressed as a function of ionic strength.
Glass and Madgin [19] reported the relative viscosity data
for aqueous Na2 SO4 at atmospheric pressure in the temper-
ature range from 298 to 313 K for the compositions between
0.018 and 3.28 mol kg−1 . The Jones and Dole equation has
been applied to dilute Na2 SO4 solution and the values of
A = 0.0155 and B = 0.357 coefficients has been found.
Correla and Kestin [28] used the linear function of pres-
sure along the isotherm to correlate the measured values of
viscosity of aqueous Na2 SO4
η(P, t, c) = η0 (T, c)[1 + β(T, c)P], (2)
where η0 (T, c) and β(T, c) are the hypothetical zero-pressure
viscosity (mPa s) and pressure coefficients (in GPa), respec-
tively, were correlated in term of temperature and concentra-
tion.
Millero et al. [24] reported the precision measurements of
the relative viscosity of dilute aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions. The
results have been used to calculate viscosity B-coefficient in
the Jones and Dole equation at temperatures 293.15, 298.15,
303.15, 308.15, and 313.15 K. The derived results are 0.375,
0.392, 0.398, 0.405, and 0.409 dm3 mol−1 , respectively. They

Table 1
Summary of the viscosity measurements for aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions
First author Year Uncertainty (%) Method Temperature range (K) Pressure range (MPa) Concentration range (molality)
ITC [17] 1928 0.3 CF 283–313 0.1 0.1–1.0
Herz [18] 1929 n.a. CF 293–363 0.1 0.5–4.0
Glass [19] 1934 n.a. OTV 298–313 0.1 0.018–3.28
Ezrokhi [20] 1953 n.a. CF 283–353 0.1 0.248–2.970
Kaminsky [21] 1956 n.a. CF 285–316 0.1 Up to 0.1
Chesnokov [22] 1962 0.05 CF 293.15 0.1 0.25–1.0
Korosi [23] 1968 0.1–0.2 GC 298–423 0.1 0.033–1.203
Millero [24] 1968 n.a. CUSLV 293–313 0.1 Dilute
Puchkov [25] 1974 1.5 FB 298–573 0.1–2 0.486–2.274
Pepinov [26,27] 1978, 1992 1.0 CF 293–573 2–30 0.1–0.782
Correla [28] 1981 1.0 ODV 293–363 0.1–30 0.56–1.104
Maksimova [29] 1987 0.5 CF 293–363 0.1 0.1–2.87
This work 2004 1.5 CF 298–573 Up to 40 0.107–2.473
CF: capillary flow; FB: falling-body; GC: glass capillary; ODV: oscillating-disk viscometer; OTV: Ostwald type viscometer; CUSLV: Cannon–Ubbelohde type
suspended level viscometer; n.a.: no uncertainty given in source reference.
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70
found that the B-coefficient goes through a maximum near
318–323 K. Kaminsky [21] reported viscosity B-coefficients
0.375, 0.381, 0.399, 0.398, and 409 dm3 mol−1 for the
Na2 SO4 solutions at temperatures 293.15, 298.15, 303.15,
308.15, and 313.15 K, respectively. The B-coefficients ob-
tained by Kaminsky [21] increase linearly with temperature.
Moulik and Rakshit [30] correlated the relative viscos-
ity data for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions with the B-coefficients.
They proposed a general polynomial form to represent the
experimental viscosity data for electrolyte solutions in the
concentration range of 0.1–1 m
η n
= 1 + Bc + (B2 ) c(1+l) ,
η0
where B is the viscosity B-coefficient in the Jones and Dole
equation, l a constant whose values are restricted within
the limits 1 ≤ l ≤ 2, and c is the concentration in m. For
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions, the values of the constants n and l
are equal 1. Moulik and Rakshit [30] reported the values of
the B-coefficient for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions at five temper-
atures between 298 and 333 K.
Aseyev [31] represented available experimental viscosity
data from the literature for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions by fol-
lowing correlation equation:
log10 η = log10 η0 + (1.418 + 0.00099t)x,
where η0 (mPa s) is the viscosity of pure water, x the com-
position (mass fraction) and t is the temperature (◦ C). The
absolute uncertainty of the calculated values of the viscosity
of H2 O + Na2 SO4 is 0.0855 Pa s.
3. Experimental apparatus and procedures
The apparatus for the determination of the viscosity of
a aqueous Na2 SO4 was the same as that used to measure
the viscosity of aqueous LiNO3 , BaNO3 , Ca(NO3 )2 , MgCl2 ,
and BaCl2 in earlier studies [11–13,15,16]. The details of
the apparatus, procedures and uncertainties of the measured
quantities have been provided in previous papers [11–13].
Only essential information will be given here. The measure-
ments were made using a capillary flow method, which gives
an uncertainty of 1.5% for the viscosity. The main parts of
the apparatus consisted of a working capillary, a high tem-
perature and high-pressure autoclave, movable and unmov-
able cylinders, electrical heaters, and solid red copper block.
The capillary and extension tubes were located in the high
temperature and high-pressure autoclave. The autoclave was
placed in a solid red copper block. Two electrical heaters
were wound around the surface of the copper block. To cre-
ate and measure the pressure, the autoclave was connected
with a dead-weight pressure gauge (MP-600) by means of
separating vessel. The uncertainty in pressure measurements
was 0.05%.
59
The final working equations for this method is


ρ ρc ρc
η = Uτ 1− (1 + α t)3 − W ,
ρc ρHg τ
gπR4 H0 ρ0,Hg mVc
U= and W= , (5)
8LVC 8πL
where R = 0.15091 ± 0.0005 mm is the inner radius of the
capillary, L = 540.324 ± 0.005 mm the capillary tube length,
τ the time of flow, α the linear expansion coefficient of the
capillary material, t the temperature difference between
experimental temperature and room temperature, m = 1.12 a
constant, ρ(P, T) the density of the fluid under study at the
(3)
experimental conditions (P, T), VC = 1.2182 cm3 the volume
of the unmovable (measuring) cylinder, ρc the density of the
fluid under study at room temperature and experimental pres-
sure, (H0 = (H1 –H2 )/ln(H1 /H2 )), where H1 and H2 are the
mercury levels at the beginning and ending of fluid flow, re-
spectively, at room temperature and atmospheric pressure,
ρHg the density of mercury at room temperature and exper-
imental pressure, ρ0,Hg is the density of mercury at room
temperature and atmospheric pressure.
The values of the parameters U and W can be also deter-
mined by means of a calibration technique. The volume of
the unmovable cylinder VC was determined using a weighing
technique [11]. Eq. (5) takes into account the acceleration of
(4) a fluid at the inlet and outlet, the variation of the geometrical
sizes of the capillary with T and P, the mercury and sam-
ple densities at the experimental conditions were varied with
temperature and pressure.
The time period for fluid flow through the capillary, τ, was
measured with a stopwatch with an uncertainty of less than
0.1 s (0.5%). All values of τ are averages of at least 5–10
measurements. At a temperature of 573 K, the minimal value
of τ was 40 s.
At the maximum measured temperature (573 K), the val-
ues of the root-mean-square deviations in the viscosity mea-
surements was δη = 2 × 10−5 g cm−1 c−1 . Based on the de-
tailed analysis of all sources of uncertainties likely to affect
the determination of viscosity with the present apparatus, the
combined maximum relative uncertainty δη/η in measuring
the viscosity was 1.5% (see [11]). The experimental uncer-
tainty in the concentration is estimated to be 0.015%.
To maintain laminar flow in the capillary the Reynolds
(Re) number was less that the critical value (Rec = 300) during
all measurements.
As one can see from Eq. (5), the values of density ρc (T0 ,
P) of the solution under study at room temperature and exper-
imental pressure, and density at the experimental conditions
ρ(P, T) are needed to calculate the dynamic viscosity from
measured quantities. For this aim we used the density data
measured in our previous paper [32] for aqueous Na2 SO4 so-
lutions at high temperatures (up to 573 K) and high pressures
(up to 40 MPa).
As a check of the method and procedure of the measure-
ments, the viscosity of pure water was measured from 296
60 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70
Table 2
Experimental viscosities, pressures, and temperatures of pure water
P (MPa) η (mPa s)
296.70 (K) 338.30 (K) 372.40 (K)
5 0.918 0.431 0.286
10 0.917 0.434 0.287
20 0.915 0.435 0.288
40 0.914 0.440 0.293
to 574 K at pressures up to 40 MPa. Table 2 provides the
present experimental viscosity data for pure water measured
using the same experimental apparatus. These data were com-
pared with values calculated from the IAPWS [33] formula-
tion (see Fig. 2a). The agreement between IAPWS [33] calcu-
lations and the present results along the isobars 5, 10, 20, and
40 MPa is good. Deviation statistics for the present viscosity
data for pure water and values calculated with IAPWS [33]
formulation are as follows: AAD = 0.41%, Bias = −0.18%,
S.D. = 0.48%, S.E. = 0.10%, and Max. Dev. = 0.89% (N = 23).
This good agreement between the present viscosity results
and IAPWS [33] calculations for pure water is confirms
the reliability and high accuracy of the measurements for
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions and correct operation of the present
instrument.
Chemically pure Na2 SO4 and distilled water were used to
prepare the solutions. The solutions at the desired concentra-
tion were prepared by the gravimetric method, and the con-
centration was checked using the density at 20 ◦ C by means
of pycnometers with reference data.
4. Results and discussion
The viscosity, η, measurements for aqueous Na2 SO4 so-
lutions has been made in the temperature range from 298 to
573 K at pressures up to 40 MPa for nine compositions 1.5,
3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 23, and 26 mass%. All experimental vis-
cosity data were obtained as a function of temperature at five
isobars 0.1, 10, 20, 30, and 40 MPa. The experimental tem-
perature, viscosity, pressure, and composition values for the
aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions are presented in Table 3. Some
selected experimental viscosity data for H2 O + Na2 SO4 so-
lutions as an example of the present results are shown in
Figs. 1(a and b)–4 in the η–T, η–P, and η–m projections to-
gether with values calculated from the IAPWS [33] formu-
lation for pure water (x = 0). To check the reproducibility of
the experimental data, the measurements of the viscosity re-
peated 5–10 times at the same selected temperature and pres-
sure. The scattering of the experimental data is within of ±0.2
to 0.4%. Figs. 1(a and b)–4 contains also the data reported by
other authors and calculated with correlation Eqs. (2) and (4)
by Correla and Kestin [28] and Aseyev [31], respectively. As
one can see from Fig. 3, the viscosity of the solution at con-
stant composition (x = 5 mass%) and selected temperatures
is slightly increases linearly as the pressure increases. The
413.62 (K) 469.40 (K) 500.22 (K) 544.23 (K) 573.70 (K)
0.196 – – – –
0.197 0.138 0.120 0.0983 0.0860
0.201 0.141 0.123 0.1012 0.0891
0.205 0.145 0.127 0.1060 0.0950
viscosity is little affected (up to 5%) at high temperatures
(573 K) and up to 1% at low temperatures (298 K) by pres-
sure changes between 0.1 and 40 MPa along the isotherms
(see Fig. 3). Fig. 5 shows the temperature dependence of
the experimental values of the viscosity pressure coefficient
αP = ␩−1 (∂η/∂P)TX for two H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions (5 and
10 mass%) at fixed pressure of 10 MPa together with values
for pure water. From the data obtained, it can be concluded
that the pressure coefficients αP is always positive and almost
independent of the concentration.
The experimental values of the viscosity for H2 O +
Na2 SO4 solutions reported here were directly compared
with the data reported by other authors in the literature.
Figs. 1(a and b)–4 contains the values of viscosity reported by
various authors from the literature together with the present
results. As one can see from these figures, the agreement be-
tween various data sets is good. Figs. 1(a and b)–4 illustrate
that our data are consistent with literature values at atmo-
spheric and high pressures and various temperatures. The ac-
ceptable agreement within ±1.5% was found between present
measurements and the data reported by Pepinov et al. [26,27]
at high pressures (10 and 30 MPa) and concentration of 5 and
10 mass%, while at low pressures the deviations are within
0.65%. Excellent agreement within ±0.75% was found be-
tween present results and the data reported by Phuchkov and
Sargaev [25] at concentrations 15 and 20 mass% and at tem-
peratures up to 348 K, while at low temperatures (298.15 K)
an outlying data point shows the deviation up to 2%. The data
reported by Maksimova et al. [29] at atmospheric pressure
and concentrations 10 and 15 mass% are systematically lower
(up to 3–4%) than the present results and other viscosity data,
although at low concentrations (5 mass%) the deviations are
within their experimental uncertainty (0.85%). Good agree-
ment within 0.5 to 1.3% is observed between present data and
the data reported by Glass and Madgin [19] and the data by
Korosi and Fabuss [23]. Differences between our measure-
ments and the values calculated with the correlation of Eq.
(3) within (1.0–1.5%), which is less than their experimental
uncertainty. The deviation plots between present data and the
values calculated with correlations (2) and (4) are given in
Figs. 6 and 7. Table 4 provides the deviation statistics for
correlation (2). Maximum deviations of up to 3–4% were ob-
served at high temperatures and high concentrations (extrap-
olated values) where the correlation (2) is not valid. At low
concentrations (<3 mass%) the agreement between present
data and the correlation (2) extrapolated to high temperatures
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70 61

Table 3 Table 3 (Continued )

Experimental viscosities, pressures, temperatures, and concentrations of
T (K) η (mPa s)
H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions
T (K) η (mPa s) 0.1 (MPa) 10 (MPa) 20 (MPa) 30 (MPa) 40 (MPa)
421.40 – 0.2535 0.2565 0.2596 0.2635
0.1 (MPa) 10 (MPa) 20 (MPa) 30 (MPa) 40 (MPa)
447.20 – 0.2125 0.2163 0.2189 0.2219
x = 1.5 (mass%) 471.31 – 0.1847 0.1878 0.1904 0.1941
298.15 0.9330 0.9335 0.9365 0.9399 0.9420 498.22 – 0.1618 0.1641 0.1786 0.1711
323.70 0.5669 0.5741 0.5795 0.5821 0.5835 525.40 – 0.1430 0.1469 0.1493 0.1524
348.15 0.3950 0.3977 0.4006 0.4038 0.4087 547.90 – 0.1296 0.1329 0.1360 0.1399
373.80 – 0.2947 0.2994 0.3034 0.3065 573.20 – 0.1143 0.1178 0.1204 0.1266
399.01 – 0.2321 0.2367 0.2398 0.2412
422.61 – 0.1927 0.1968 0.1999 0.2022 x = 15 (mass%)
447.60 – 0.1633 0.1684 0.1700 0.1724 298.15 1.5450 1.5480 1.5500 1.5510 1.5540
470.70 – 0.1432 0.1468 0.1499 0.1508 323.40 0.9286 0.9316 0.9354 0.9401 0.9450
498.30 – 0.1248 0.1286 0.1307 0.1325 348.70 0.6292 0.6336 0.6367 0.6418 0.6473
520.64 – 0.1128 0.1165 0.1191 0.1209 372.80 – 0.4705 0.4743 0.4795 0.4840
547.90 – 0.1000 0.1025 0.1068 0.1089 395.40 – 0.3731 0.3767 0.3810 0.3860
421.30 – 0.2998 0.3027 0.3087 0.3114
x = 3 (mass%) 447.60 – 0.2493 0.2551 0.2575 0.2603
298.15 0.9746 0.9759 0.9769 0.9799 0.9812 473.93 – 0.2133 0.2169 0.2991 0.2240
323.15 0.5972 0.5991 0.6012 0.6054 0.6090 497.80 – 0.1892 0.1945 0.1978 0.2001
348.35 0.4107 0.4134 0.4169 0.4200 0.4225 522.40 – 0.1686 0.1709 0.1748 0.1790
372.90 – 0.3096 0.3124 0.3164 0.3186 547.70 – 0.1510 0.1548 0.1589 0.1634
398.40 – 0.2422 0.2468 0.2494 0.2510 570.50 – 0.1354 0.1399 0.1463 0.1496
421.50 – 0.2013 0.2035 0.2068 0.2090
447.81 – 0.1686 0.1705 0.1734 0.1761 x = 20 (mass%)
473.70 – 0.1456 0.1486 0.1514 0.1530 298.15 1.9630 1.9650 1.9660 1.9670 1.9680
497.10 – 0.1296 0.1312 0.1360 0.1375 323.15 1.1680 1.1700 1.1760 1.1810 1.1850
523.30 – 0.1150 0.1169 0.1196 0.1219 347.90 0.7892 0.7944 0.8004 0.8053 0.8110
549.90 – 0.1023 0.1065 0.1086 0.1109 374.50 – 0.5699 0.5743 0.5799 0.5875
572.62 – 0.0920 0.0967 0.0992 0.1020 397.21 – 0.4505 0.4540 0.4598 0.4654
420.30 – 0.3686 0.3729 0.3775 0.3826
x = 5 (mass%) 444.81 – 0.3083 0.3129 0.3175 0.3219
298.15 1.0350 1.0400 1.0410 1.0420 1.0440 472.30 – 0.2608 0.2661 0.2699 0.2739
323.80 0.6285 0.6320 0.6330 0.6360 0.6385 497.19 – 0.2292 0.2335 0.2387 0.2425
347.20 0.4434 0.4465 0.4496 0.4530 0.4587 523.80 – 0.2021 0.2076 0.2105 0.2160
371.95 – 0.3317 0.3350 0.3389 0.3430 545.40 – 0.1840 0.1879 0.1923 0.1989
395.62 – 0.2626 0.2668 0.2695 0.2716
424.67 – 0.2079 0.2096 0.2130 0.2164 x = 23 (mass%)
446.24 – 0.1796 0.1820 0.1853 0.1879 303.15 1.9930 1.9930 1.9960 1.9990 2.0020
470.16 – 0.1564 0.1598 0.1629 0.1647 323.15 1.3330 1.3360 1.3400 1.3460 1.3530
499.30 – 0.1352 0.1363 0.1392 0.1430 348.70 0.8925 0.8987 0.9053 0.9128 0.9200
524.70 – 0.1204 0.1231 0.1267 0.1286 370.40 – 0.6799 0.6864 0.6905 0.6997
545.30 – 0.1097 0.1120 0.1143 0.1177 398.80 – 0.5081 0.5124 0.5185 0.5253
572.96 – 0.0965 0.0998 0.1029 0.1066 422.51 – 0.4132 0.4195 0.4254 0.4300
447.90 – 0.3449 0.3498 0.3568 0.3609
x = 7 (mass%) 472.00 – 0.2966 0.3024 0.3086 0.3120
298.15 1.1190 1.1190 1.1190 1.1210 1.1220 496.34 – 0.2620 0.2695 0.2734 0.2776
323.25 0.6825 0.6846 0.6875 0.6902 0.6935 520.51 – 0.2338 0.2387 0.2415 0.2490
347.60 0.4733 0.4764 0.4795 0.4824 0.4875 548.70 – 0.2061 0.2106 0.2186 0.2230
373.90 – 0.3482 0.3508 0.3546 0.3590
397.10 – 0.2772 0.2799 0.2834 0.2870 x = 26 (mass%)
425.60 – 0.2211 0.2267 0.2293 0.2300 303.15 2.2430 2.2450 2.2490 2.2530 2.2590
447.00 – 0.1913 0.1946 0.1975 0.1998 323.15 1.5040 1.5050 1.5090 1.5150 1.5230
472.20 – 0.1656 0.1689 0.1706 0.1739 348.60 1.0100 1.0170 1.0230 1.0290 1.0410
498.70 – 0.1451 0.1489 0.1506 0.1533 375.20 – 0.7321 0.7395 0.7436 0.7535
523.10 – 0.1298 0.1324 0.1367 0.1385 399.40 – 0.5695 0.5739 0.5800 0.5895
546.20 – 0.1171 0.1197 0.1224 0.1267 423.80 – 0.4623 0.4688 0.4726 0.4803
573.50 0.1031 0.1068 0.1092 0.1143 447.60 – 0.3901 0.3981 0.4010 0.4047
473.90 – 0.3308 0.3354 0.3413 0.3476
x = 10 (mass%) 498.70 – 0.2923 0.2976 0.3018 0.3090
298.15 1.2520 1.2550 1.2560 1.2570 1.2580 520.50 – 0.2636 0.2691 0.2746 0.2813
323.05 0.7656 0.7670 0.7710 0.7745 0.7780
348.42 0.5232 0.5267 0.5294 0.5340 0.5399
372.40 – 0.3948 0.3979 0.3998 0.4062
398.72 – 0.3052 0.3094 0.3132 0.3159
62 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

Fig. 1. (a and b). Measured values of viscosity of H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of temperature along the four selected concentrations and at atmospheric
pressure together with values reported by other authors from the literature: (a) 10 mass%; (b) curve 1–20 mass%, curve 2–15 mass% and curve 3–5 mass%.

data still is good (deviations within ± 2%). The deviation
statistics for the correlation (4) at atmospheric pressure are:
AAD = 1.22, Bias = −0.78, S.D. = 1.24, S.E. = 0.3, and Max.
Dev. = 2.42. This excellent agreement between present and
published data at atmospheric and high pressures also con-
firms the reliability of the present measurements and its con-
sistency with literature data. Good agreement within 1.25%
was found also between present data and the values calculated
with correlation (4) at high pressures (see Fig. 2a and b).
The measured viscosities were used to calculate viscosity
A- and B-coefficients of the Jones–Dole equation for vari-
ous isotherms. The values of viscosity A- and B-coefficients
of an electrolyte provide information on the interaction
between dissolved ions and molecules of a solvent. For
example, the A-coefficient of the Jones–Dole equation is
determined by ion–atmosphere interaction and ionic mo-
bilities and can be calculated from theory [34,35]. Low
concentration viscosity measurements for aqueous elec-
trolyte solutions show good agreement between experi-
ment and theory [21,36–39]. The second Jones–Dole pa-
rameter B is related to the size and the shape of the ions
and the solute–solvent interactions [3]. Therefore, viscos-
ity A- and B-coefficients of electrolyte solutions are useful
tools in study structural interactions (ion–ion, ion–solvent,
and solvent–solvent) in solutions. An extensive compila-
tion of Jones–Dole A- and B-coefficients for aqueous elec-
trolyte solutions is reported by various authors [3,4,21,
36–49].
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70 63

Fig. 2. (a and b). Measured values of viscosity of H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of temperature at selected concentrations (5 and 10 mass%) and at
pressures (10 and 30) MPa together with data reported by other authors.

The viscosity B-coefficient for aqueous solutions shows
strong temperature dependence, which can be attributed to
ion–solvent interactions. However, measurements of the tem-
perature dependence of the A- and B-coefficients have so
far been limited to rather narrow ranges of temperature (up
to 368 K) with less satisfactory accuracy. We examine the
viscosity A- and B-coefficients values of aqueous Na2 SO4
solutions as a function of temperature in the temperature
range from 298 to 573 K. We also sufficiently extended the
concentration range of the viscosity measurements to accu-
rately determine high degree coefficients (B, D, and F) in the
Jones–Dole equation.
Falkenhagen–Onsager–Fuoss [35,50] and Debye–
Hückel–Onsager [51,52] theory predicts a square root
√ and c the electrolyte molarity concentration (mol l−1 ). This
concentration, η(P,T,c)
η0 (P,T ) ∝ c, dependence of the viscosity
of ionic solutions at infinite dilution (c → 0). This theory
correctly explains the rise of viscosity with concentration in
the limit of very low (dilute solutions) ion concentrations
(c < 0.05 mol l−1 ). This model was based on macroscopic
consideration. Therefore, this model is inadequate when in-
termolecular correlation becomes important. Jones and Dole
[53] proposed an empirical extension of the Falkenhagen
[35] model to high concentrations as
√
η(P, T, c)
= 1 + A c + Bc, (6)
η0 (P, T )
for the viscosity of electrolyte solutions. In Eq. (6), η and
η0 are the viscosities of an electrolyte solution and pure
solvent (water), respectively, A an always positive constant,
equation is valid only for concentrations below 0.1 mol l−1
and provides a better description of the experimental vis-
64 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

Fig. 3. Measured values of viscosity of H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions (open symbols) as a function of pressure at selected concentration (5 mass%) and at various
temperatures together with data reported by other authors. Open symbols are present results and filled symbols are reported by Pepinov et al. [26,27].

cosity data. The viscosity A-coefficient is a related to the 1/2 √

∗ Fe2 NA (1 + 2)
long-range coulombic force interactions and the mobilities A = ,
of solute ions and B is the results of interactions between the 12π(ε∗ k)1/2
 
solvent and ions and ions size. The sign of the B-coefficient z2 (λ∞ ∞
+ + λ− ) 4(λ∞ ∞ 2
+ − λ− )
depends on the degree of solvent structuring introduced by f = √ 1− √ 2 ,
4(2 + 2)(λ∞ ∞
+ λ− ) (1 + 2) (λ∞ ∞ 2
+ + λ− )
the ions. A positive value of the B-coefficient is associ-
(8)
ated with structure-making (ordering) ions, while a negative
value of B-coefficient is associated with structure-breaking
(disordering) ions. Falkenhagen and Dole [54] gave a the- where A* = 1.113 × 10−5 ◦ C2 (m K mol−3 )1/2 ,
oretical derivation of the A- coefficient. Its general form f (λ∞ ∞
+ , λ− , z+ , z− ) is the function of the equivalent con-
is ductance λ∞ ± at infinite dilution of the ions, and z± are the
charges. The value of parameter A depends also on the vis-
A∗ cosity of the solvent η0 , its relative permittivity (dielectric
A= f (λ∞ ∞
+ , λ− , z+ , z− ), (7)
η0 (ε0 T )1/2 constant) ε0 , and the temperature T.

Fig. 4. Measured values of relative viscosity (η/η0 ) of H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of concentration m along the isotherms of 298.15 K and at
atmospheric pressure together with values reported by other authors.
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70 65

Fig. 5. The viscosity pressure coefficient, αP = ␩−1 (∂η/∂P)TX , of H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions and pure water as a function of temperature at two selected concen-
tration (5 and 10 mass%) and at pressures 10 MPa together with values calculated with IAPWS [33] formulation for pure water.

Present experimental data for the relative viscosity ηη0 for

various temperatures together with data reported by other au-
thors at low concentrations were used to calculate A- and B-
coefficients in Jones and Dole [53] Eq. (6). The B-coefficient
can be estimated from experimental viscosity data by extrap-
olating the function

Fig. 6. Percentage viscosity deviations, δη = ((ηexp − ηcal )/ηexp ) × 100, of
the experimental viscosities for H2 O + Na2 SO4 from the values calculated
with correlation Eq. (2) by Correla and Kestin [28]. (䊉) 0.1 MPa; (
)
10 MPa; (
) 20 MPa; () 30 MPa and (×) 40 MPa.
(η/η0 ) − 1 − Ac1/2
B + Dc = , (9)
c
to zero concentration, using theoretical value of A or as slope
of the dependence [(η/η0 )−1 ]/c1/2 on c1/2 (Jones–Dole plot,
see Fig. 8a and b)


(η/η0 ) − 1
= A + Bc1/2 . (10)
c1/2
The present viscosity data for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions
are presented in Fig. 8(a and b) together with data reported
by other authors at low concentrations in the Jones–Dole plot
[(η/η0 )−1 ]/c1/2 versus c1/2 for the two selected temperatures
of 298.15 and 323.15 K. The coefficients A and B, the
intercept, and the slope, respectively of a Jones–Dole plot,
were calculated using least-squares analysis of the present
data and the data reported in other studies from the literature

Table 4
Deviation statistics between present viscosity results and the values calcu-
lated with Correla and Kestin [28] correlation (2)
x (mass%) AAD Bias S.D. S.E. Max. Dev.

Fig. 7. Percentage viscosity deviations, δη = ((ηexp − ηcal )/ηexp ) × 100, of 1.5 0.64 −0.21 0.76 0.18 0.86
the experimental viscosities for H2 O + Na2 SO4 from the values calcu- 3.0 1.69 −0.61 1.91 0.39 3.00
lated with correlation Eq. (4) by Aseyev [31] at atmospheric pressure. (䊉) 5.0 0.91 −0.39 1.17 0.31 2.60
1.5 mass%; ( ) 3 mass%; (×) 5 mass%; (
) 7 mass%; () 10 mass% and P = 0.1 MPa 0.73 −0.44 0.86 0.22 2.50
() 15 mass%. All data 1.21 −0.50 1.47 0.20 3.00
66 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

Fig. 8. (a and b). Jones–Dole plot [(η/η0 )−1]/c1/2 vs. c1/2 for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions for isotherm of (a) 298.15 K and (b) 323.15 K at atmospheric pressure.

Table 5
The viscosity A-, B-, D-, and F-coefficients of aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of temperature
T (K) A (dm3/2 mol−1/2 ) B (dm3 mol−1 ) D (dm6 mol−2 ) F (dm7.5 mol−2.5 )
P = 0.1 (MPa)
298.15 0.0155 0.386 0.030 0.137
323.15 0.0162 0.403 0.020 0.100
348.15 0.0150 0.390 0.015 0.105
P = 10 (MPa)
298.15 0.0155 0.386 0.030 0.137
323.15 0.0160 0.400 0.020 0.100
348.15 0.0150 0.390 0.015 0.104
373.15 0.0142 0.385 0.010 0.105
423.15 0.0140 0.365 0.009 0.110
473.15 0.0140 0.355 0.009 0.120
523.15 0.0140 0.350 0.009 0.140
573.15 0.0140 0.350 0.009 0.230
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70
for various temperatures. As Fig. 8(a and b) shows, the data
lie on the straight line with negligible scatter in the concen-
tration range c < 0.1 mol l−1 , but this concentration range
might change with temperature. The results are summarized
in Table 5 and presented in Fig. 9(a and b) as a function of
temperature together with values reported by other authors
and calculated from theory. The agreement between A- and
B-coefficients derived in present study and calculated with
theory and ionic B-coefficients data is good (see Fig. 9a
and b). As one can see from Fig. 9(a and b), both A- and
B-coefficients go through a maximum (dB/dT = 0) near the
323 K. At temperatures below about 323 K the derivative
(temperature coefficient) dB/dT > 0 (structure-breaking ions)
is positive, while above the temperature of 323 K, dB/dT < 0
(structure-making ions) [41,55,56]. The B-coefficients, ob-
tained by other authors in all previous studies (except [24]),
increase almost linearly (see Fig. 9b) with temperature in the
temperature range up to 313 K. Millero et al. [24] showed
that B-coefficient goes through a maximum near 318–323 K.
Since B-coefficient is proportional to the partial molar
volumes of a salt V̄ (see for example, Refs. [41,44,48]),
or hydration volume, one would expect (dB/dT) to be
proportional (dV̄ /dT ). As shown by various authors (see for
example, Refs. [32,57–65]) for aqueous electrolyte solutions
the partial molar volume goes also through maximum within
the same temperature range. Our earlier PVTx and partial
molar measurements [32] for aqueous Na2 SO4 showed
that the partial molar volume goes through maximum at
a temperature of 323 K. Therefore, indirect studies of the
volumetric properties of aqueous Na2 SO4 also confirmed the
maximum in temperature dependence of the B-coefficient.
Cox and Wolfenden [49] assumed the additivity of the
ionic B-coefficients. This additivity, B = 'νi Bi , where the
summation extends over all the ions present and the ionic
B-coefficients Bi . The values of Bi are constant at a given
T for given ions in a specific solvent and describe solely the
ion–solvent interactions. The present results for B-coefficient
show good agreement with the data estimated from the addi-
tivity principle (see Fig. 9b).
For electrolyte solutions like aqueous Na2 SO4 , the viscos-
ity B-coefficient is positive. At 298.15 K, the B-coefficients
values for Na+ are 0.085 and 0.206 for SO4 2− (structure-
ordering ion) is positive, typical of ions that are strongly hy-
drated [48]. The values of the B-coefficients for Na+ and
SO4 2− ions become less positive as the temperature is de-
creasing [48]. There are other types of electrolyte solu-
tions (for example, H2 O + KNO3 , H2 O + KBr, H2 O + KCl,
H2 O + KI, H2 O + RbCl, and H2 O + CsCl) for which the vis-
cosity decreases with concentration at low electrolyte con-
centrations reaching a minimum value, then increasing mono-
tonically for higher concentrations. For these type electrolyte
solutions the B-coefficient is negative. The observed viscos-
ity changes result from competition between various effects
occurring in the ionic neighborhood. At a given concentra-
tion, the B-coefficient can be interpreted in terms of a com-
petition between specialized viscosity effects as (coulom-
67
bic interaction, size and shape effects or Einstein effect,
alignment or orientation of polar molecules by the ionic
field, and distortion of the solvent structure [3]). These ef-
fects govern the viscosity behavior of the aqueous electrolyte
solutions.
Jones and Talley [38], Kaminsky [21,36], Desnoyers and
Perron [44], Feakins and Lawrence [66], Desnoyers et al.
[67], and Robertson and Tyrrell [68], added a quadratic term
(extended Jones–Dole equation)
η(P, T, m) √
= 1 + A c + Bc + Dc2 , (11)
η0 (P, T )
to extend the Jones–Dole equation for more concentrated
electrolyte solutions (c < 0.1–0.2 m). The new Dc2 term of Eq.
(11) accounts for all solute–solvent and solute–solute
√ struc-
tural interactions that were not accounted by the A c and Bc
terms at high concentrations such as [3,44]: high terms of the
long-range coulombic forces; high term hydrodynamic ef-
fect; and interactions arising from changes in solute–solvent
interactions with concentration. The range of the concentra-
tion in present study overlaps the range where Dc2 term is
essential. In present study we added an extra term in c2.5 for
application of Eq. (11) to higher concentration
η(P, T, m) √
= 1 + A c + Bc + Dc2 + Fc2.5 . (12)
η0 (P, T )
The relative viscosities for aqueous Na2 SO4 were fitted,
up to 2.5 m, with the relation (12). The values of the A-, B-,
D-, and F-coefficients calculated with present viscosity data
together with data reported by other authors at low concen-
trations are presented in Table 5 for various temperatures. As
one can see from this table the values of the D-coefficient
are monotonically decreasing with temperature. The temper-
ature dependence of the viscosity D-coefficient for aqueous
Na2 SO4 is depicted in Fig. 9(c) together with the values re-
ported by other authors. Present values of the D-coefficients
are good agreement with the data reported by Kaminsky [21]
(see Fig. 9c).
Lencka et al. [10] developed the model for multicompo-
nent, concentrated electrolyte solutions. They developed the
method for calculating viscosity of aqueous systems rang-
ing from dilute to very concentrated. Chandra and Bagchi
[7,8] developed a new microscopic model for the ionic con-
tribution to the viscosity of dilute electrolyte solutions on the
basis of mode coupling theory. They presented a microscopic
study of the concentration dependence of viscosity of an elec-
trolyte solution. This theory predicts a stronger increase of
viscosity with concentration than classical theory of Falken-
hagen [35]. According this theory, at finite concentration the
viscosity increases nonlinearly with square root of concen-
tration contrary to the Falkenhagen [35] equation.
Jiang and Sandler [5] developed a new statistical
mechanics-based model for the viscosity of electrolyte so-
lutions. This model based on the combination of liquid-state
68 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70

Fig. 9. (a–c). Experimental viscosity A-, B-, and D-coefficients of the H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions as a function of temperature together with values reported by
other authors from the literature. The solid curve is to guide the eye.
 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70
Fig. 10. Comparison of the concentration dependence of the present experimental relative viscosity results for H2 O + Na2 SO4 solutions with values calculated
from various theoretical models and correlations at atmospheric pressure and at two temperatures of 298.15 and 323.15 K.
theory and absolute-rate theory


η(P, T, c) √ fEX
= (1 + a c + bc) exp , (13)
η0 (P, T ) RT
where fEX is the excess contribution of the activation
Helmholtz energy of the solution with the pure solvent. Jiang
and Sandler [5] provided the analytical expression for hard-
sphere and electrostatic contributions fEX = fHS + fEL . The pa-
rameters a and b in Eq. (13) have physical meaning. As is the
case for the parameter B in the Jones–Dole Eq. (6), the b
value indicates the degree of order or disorder introduced by
ions into the solvent structure. The value of the parameter a
was fixed at 1.6 [5]. Fig. 10 demonstrates the predictive ca-
pability of the various models and correlation equations for
the viscosity of electrolyte solutions over a wide concentra-
tion range. Different empirical and semi-empirical correla-
tions and microscopic theoretical models were directly fitted
to present viscosity data for aqueous Na2 SO4 . As Fig. 10
shows, the statistical mechanics-based model by Jiang and
Sandler [5] with three physical meaning fitting parameters
(σ1 + , ε1 , b) present viscosity data for aqueous Na2 SO4 solu-
tions as well as multiparametric emperical correlations which
were directly fitted to the experiemntal data. This model can
reproduce all of the present experimental data with an AAD
that is comparable with empirical correlations.
5. Conclusion
Viscosities of nine compositions (1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20,
23, and 26) mass% of aqueous Na2 SO4 have been measured
69
in the liquid phase with a capillary flow technique. Measure-
ments were made at five isobars 0.1, 10, 20, 30, and 40 MPa.
The range of temperatures was from 298 to 573 K. The total
uncertainty of viscosity, pressure, temperature, and concen-
tration measurements was estimated to be less than 1.5%,
0.05%, 15 mK, and 0.015%, respectively. The reliability and
accuracy of the experimental method was confirmed with
measurements on pure water. The experimental and calcu-
lated values of viscosity for pure water from IAPWS [33]
formulation show excellent agreement within their experi-
mental uncertainties (AAD = 0.41%). The measured viscos-
ity values of solutions at atmospheric and high pressures were
compared with the data reported in the literature by other
authors. Good agreement (within ±0.5–1.3%) is found be-
tween the present measurements and the data sets reported
by other authors in the literature. The temperature, pressure,
and concentration dependences of the relative viscosity (η/η0 )
are studied. The values of the viscosity A- and B-, D-, and
F-coefficients of the extended Jones–Dole equation for the
relative viscosity (η/η0 ) of aqueous Na2 SO4 solutions as a
function of temperature are studied. The quality and predic-
tive capability and validity of the various theoretical models
are tested.
Acknowledgment
Abdulagatov I.M. thanks the Physical and Chemical Prop-
erties Division at the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology for the opportunity to work as a Guest Researcher at
NIST during the course of this research.
70 I.M. Abdulagatov et al. / Fluid Phase Equilibria 227 (2005) 57–70
References
[1] A.V. Sharygin, I. Mokbel, C. Xiao, R.H. Wood, J. Phys. Chem. B
105 (2001) 229–237.
[2] S. Gupta, J.D. Olson, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (2003) 6359–6374.
[3] R.H. Stokes, R. Mills, Viscosity of Electrolytes and Related Proper-
ties, Pergamon Press Inc., New York, 1965.
[4] A.L. Horvath, Handbook of Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions: Physi-
cal Properties, Estimation Methods and Correlation Methods, Ellis
Horwood, West Sussex, England, 1985.
[5] J. Jiang, S.I. Sandler, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (2003) 6267–6272.
[6] M.J.C. Esteves, J.E. de, M. Cardoso, O.E. Barcia, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 40 (2001) 5021–5028.
[7] A. Chandra, B. Bagchi, J. Phys. Chem. 104 (2000) 9067–9080.
[8] A. Chandra, B. Bagchi, J. Chem. Phys. 113 (2000) 3226–3232.
[9] B.C. Harrap, E. Heymann, Chem. Rev. 48 (1951) 45–67.
[10] M.M. Lencka, A. Anderko, S.J. Sandlers, R.D. Young, Int. J. Ther-
mophys. 19 (1998) 367–378.
[11] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, J. Chem. Eng. Data 48 (2003)
1549–1556.
[12] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., in press.
[13] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, J. Chem. Eng. Data 49 (2004)
1444–1450.
[14] I.M. Abdulagatov, S.M. Rasulov, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 100
(1996) 148–154.
[15] N.D. Azizov, T.S. Akhundov, Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 71 (1997)
1955–1959.
[16] T.S. Akhundov, A.I. Iskenderov, A.B. Zeinalova, Izv. Vuzov, ser.
Neft i Gas 5 (1991) 64–66.
[17] S.J. Bates, W.P. Baxter, International Critical Tables, Viscosity of
Aqueous Solutions of Strong Electrolytes, vol. 3, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1928, pp. 12–19.
[18] W. Herz, E. Martin, Zeit. Anorg. Chem., Bd. 132 (1924) 41–53.
[19] H.M. Glass, W.M. Madgin, J. Chem. Soc. (London) (1934)
1124–1131.
[20] L.L. Ezrokhi, Trudy VNIIG 27 (1953) 113–132.
[21] M. Kaminsky, Z. Phys. Chem. (N.F.) 8 (1956) 173–191.
[22] N.A. Chesnokov, Proc. VNII Metrology 62 (1962) 44–51.
[23] A. Korosi, B.M. Fabuss, J. Chem. Eng. Data 13 (1968) 548–552.
[24] F.J. Millero, W. Drost-Hansen, L. Korson, J. Phys. Chem. 72 (1968)
2251–2254.
[25] L.V. Puchkov, P.M. Sargaev, Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 1 (1974) 96–109.
[26] R.I. Pepinov, V.D. Usufova, N.V. Lobkova, I.A. Panakhov, Russ.
High Temp. 16 (1978) 960–965.
[27] R.I. Pepinov, Ph.D. Thesis, Baku, Azerbaijan (1992).
[28] R.J. Correla, J. Kestin, J. Chem. Eng. Data 26 (1981) 43–47.
[29] I. Maksimova, J.S. Pack, N.N. Pravdin, Electrolyte Properties. A
Handbook, Metallurgy Press, Moscow, 1987.
[30] S.P. Moulik, A.K. Rakshit, J. Indian Chem. Soc. 12 (1975) 450–453.
[31] G.G. Aseyev, Electrolytes. Properties of Solutions. Methods for Cal-
culation of Multicomponent Systems and Experimental Data on
Thermal Conductivity and Surface Tension, Begell-House Inc., New-
York, 1998.
[32] N.D. Azizov, T.S. Akhundov, Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 38 (2000)
220–226.
[33] J. Kestin, J.V. Sengers, B. Kamgar-Parsi, J.M.H. Levelt Sengers, J.
Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 13 (1984) 175–189.
[34] H. Falkenhagen, Theorie der Elektrolyte. (S. Hirzel, Leipzig, 1971).
[35] H. Falkenhagen, Z. Phys. 32 (1931) 745.
[36] M. Kaminsky, Z. Phys. Chem. 12 (1957) 206–231.
[37] M. Kaminsky, Z. Phys. Chem. 5 (1955) 154.
[38] G. Jones, S.K. Talley, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 55 (1933) 4124.
[39] E. Hückel, H. Schaaf, Z. Phys. Chem. N.F. 21 (1959) 326.
[40] R.A. Robinson, R.H. Stokes, Electrolyte Solutions, second ed., But-
terworths Scientific Pub., London, 1959.
[41] D.J.P. Out, J.M. Los, J. Sol. Chem. 9 (1980) 19–35.
[42] R. Dordick, L. Korson, W. Drost-Hansen, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
72 (1979) 206–214.
[43] R.S. Dordick, W. Drost-Hansen, J. Phys. Chem. 85 (1981)
1086–1088.
[44] J.E. Desnoyers, G. Perron, J. Sol. Chem. 1 (1972) 199–212.
[45] R.L. Kay, T. Vituccio, C. Zawoyski, D.F. Evans, J. Phys. Chem. 70
(1966) 2336–2350.
[46] Y.C. Wu, J. Phys. Chem. 72 (1968) 2663–2665.
[47] R.A. Horne (Ed.), Water and Aqueous Solutions, Structure, Thermo-
dynamics, and Transport Properties, Wiley Interscience, New York,
NY, 1972.
[48] H.D.B. Jenkins, Y. Marcus, Chem. Rev. 95 (1995) 2695–2724.
[49] W.M. Cox, J.H. Wolfenden, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 145 (1934)
475–488.
[50] L. Onsager, R.M. Fuoss, J. Phys. Chem. 36 (1932) 2689.
[51] P. Debye, H. Hückel, Z. Phys. 25 (1924) 49.
[52] L. Onsager, Z. Phys. 27 (1926) 388.
[53] G. Jones, M. Dole, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 51 (1929) 2950.
[54] H. Falkenhagen, M. Dole, Phys. Z. 30 (1929) 611.
[55] H.S. Frank, W.Y. Wen, Discuss. Faraday Soc. 24 (1957) 133.
[56] M. Kaminsky, Discuss. Faraday Soc. 24 (1957) 171.
[57] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 36 (2004)
17–27.
[58] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, Int. J. Thermophys. 24 (2003)
1581–1610.
[59] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, J. Sol. Chem. 32 (2003) 573–599.
[60] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, High temperature–high pressure, in
press.
[61] I.M. Abdulagatov, N.D. Azizov, J. Sol. Chem., in press.
[62] L. Hnĕdkovský, V. Majer, R.H. Wood, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 27
(1995) 801.
[63] J.G. Ganopolsky, H.L. Bianchi, H.R. Corti, J. Sol. Chem. 27 (1995)
377.
[64] M. Obšil, V. Majer, G.T. Hefter, V. Hynek, J. Chem. Thermodyn.
42 (1997) 137–142.
[65] V. Majer, A. Inglese, R.H. Wood, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 21 (1989)
321–329.
[66] D. Feakins, D.G. Lawrence, Chem. Soc. A 212 (1966).
[67] J.E. Desnoyers, M. Arel, P.A. Leduc, Can. J. Chem. 47 (1969) 547.
[68] C.T. Robertson, H.J.U. Tyrrell, J. Chem. Soc. A 1938 (1969).