Vapor-Liquid Equilibria and 

Physical Property Measurements for 

5-Chloromethyl Furfural and 

Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate 

Rubin J McDougal 

Louis V Jasperson 

David M VonNiederhausern 

Wiltec Research Company, Inc. 

488 S 500 W 

Provo, UT 84601 

December 11, 2013 

Project Sponsor: 

xF Technologies 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Project Supervisors: 

Aviad Cahana & Luzheng Zhang 

xF Technologies 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Purchase Order Number: 

???? 
i 

Abstract 

Binary PTx measurements were performed on the 5-chloromethyl furfural (CMF) and ethyl 5-methyl-2-

furanoate (EMF) system at 80 and 110°C. Data were correlated with the NRTL Activity Coefficient Model. 

Vapor pressure measurements were performed on CMF and EMF. Results were correlated with the Antoine 

Equation. 

Liquid heat capacity measurements were performed on CMF and EMF. Results were correlated using a linear 

fit of the form C = A + BT. 

The CMF supplied by xF Technologies had a very short shelf-life. Multiple batches were used to complete the 

measurement program. 

 
ii 

Table of Contents 

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................... i 

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... ii 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... iii 

List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................................................iv 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

Apparatus and Procedures ...................................................................................................................................... 3 

Data Reduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Figures ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 
iii 

List of Tables 

Table 1. PTx Measurement Results for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 80°C ............. 9 

Table 2. PTx Measurement Results for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 110°C ......... 10 

Table 3. Vapor Pressure Measurements for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural ................................................................ 11 

Table 4. Vapor Pressure Measurements for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate ........................................................... 12 

Table 5. Heat Capacity of 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate ......................................... 13 

Table 6. Source and CAS Numbers of Chemicals .................................................................................................. 14 

Table 7. Physical Properties of Chemicals ............................................................................................................ 15 

 
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. PTx Plot for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 80°C ....................................... 16 

Figure 2. PTx Plot for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 110°C ..................................... 17 

Figure 3. Vapor Pressure Plot for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate ............................. 18 

Figure 4. Liquid Heat Capacities for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate ......................... 19 

Figure 5. Glass Still Used for Vapor Pressure and VLE Measurements ................................................................ 20 

Figure 6. Calorimeter used for Heat Capacity Measurements ............................................................................. 21 
1 

Introduction 

Binary PTx measurements were performed on the 5-chloromethyl furfural (CMF) and ethyl 5-methyl-2-

furanoate (EMF) system at 80 and 110°C. Data were correlated with the NRTL Activity Coefficient Model. 

Vapor pressure measurements were performed on CMF and EMF. Results were correlated with the Antoine 

Equation. 

Liquid heat capacity measurements were performed on CMF and EMF. Results were correlated using a linear 

fit of the form C = A + BT. 

The CMF supplied by xF Technologies had a very short shelf-life. Multiple batches were used to complete the 

measurement program. 

 
2 

Results and Discussion 

Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium

The CMF + EMF system exhibited slightly positive deviation from ideality at both 80 and 110°C. The results of 

the PTx measurements are reported in Tables 1 and 2. These tables show the run number, the measured 

molar charge (z) compositions, the calculated molar liquid (x) and vapor (y) compositions, the measured and 

correlated total pressure (P), the calculated activity (γ) and fugacity (φ) coefficients, and the resulting relative 

volatility (α) for the system. NRTL parameters were used to correlate the measured data and are shown at the 

bottom of each table. The temperature dependence of the NRTL τij parameters is shown in the following table 

(where all αij = 0.20): 

τij CMF EMF 

CMF 0 

T

164.77

.1 1932 +

EMF 

T

265.03

− .1 7765 + 0 

Figures 1 and 2 show plots of the total pressure versus composition for each of the isotherms studied. In these 

plots, open triangles represent the measured Px data, the long dashed line represents the correlation of the Px 

data, the short dashed line represents the correlated Py curve, and the solid line represents Raoult’s Law. 

Vapor Pressure

Vapor pressure measurements have been completed for CMF and EMF. The measured saturation vapor 

pressure data are reported in Tables 3 and 4. The measured data have been correlated with the Antoine 

equation and compared with the correlation in the table. The parameters obtained from correlation of the 

Antoine equation are reported in the table. Figure 3 plots measured and correlated pressure for the two 

compounds. 

Heat Capacity

Liquid heat capacity measurements were performed on CMF and EMF. The measured data have been 

correlated with an equation of the form C = A + B∙T and the correlation parameters A and B are reported in 

Table 5. Figure 4 plots the correlated heat capacities versus temperature. 

 
3 

Apparatus and Procedures 

Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium

The reported VLE data were measured using the glass still apparatus shown in Figure 5. The still had an 

internal volume of about 300 cc and was connected to a large ballast tank and to either an oil or mercury 

manometer. The line through the top of the still was used for charging and degassing. Tap water was 

continually pumped through the condenser to maintain temperatures to about 25°C. 

A thermowell extended through the top of the still and into the liquid phase. Platinum resistance 

thermometers were used to measure the temperature in the still and in the bath. These thermometers were 

calibrated using ice and steam points and then referenced to a NIST traceable standard resistance 

thermometer. Temperatures were measured to an accuracy of ±0.025°C or better. The still was placed in a 

constant temperature bath that was controlled at a temperature 2.5°C warmer than the saturation 

temperature to promote refluxing. The liquid in the still was vigorously stirred to ensure good contact 

between the vapor and the liquid phases and to prevent superheating in the liquid. The ballast tank pressure 

was used to control the still temperature. This pressure was adjusted to obtain the desired temperature. Dry 

nitrogen was used to adjust the system pressure. 

A PTx run was initiated by evacuating the still and then charging it with a known amount of one of the 

compounds. The still was submerged in an isothermal bath and the still contents were agitated with a 

magnetically coupled stirrer until equilibrium was established at the desired temperature. The still contents 

were then degassed by withdrawing the vapor into a weighed receiver. Degassing was done to remove any 

compounds from the still that were lighter than the compounds of interest. These light compounds can cause 

errors in the total pressure measurements. The vapor pressure of the pure compound was then read. The still 

contents were again degassed and the pressure was again recorded. This procedure was repeated until a 

stable vapor pressure was obtained. 

Increments of the second compound were then added to the still. After each addition, the still contents were 

brought to equilibrium at the desired temperature and degassed. The pressure was then measured and 

recorded. This procedure was repeated until over half of the entire composition range had been traversed. 

The other half of the composition range was covered by repeating the same procedure starting with the 

second compound and adding increments of the first. 

The system pressure was determined by reading each side of the oil manometer, or mercury manometer 

above 40 mmHg total pressure, with a cathetometer to ±0.05 mm. The reference side of the manometer was 

connected to a McLeod gauge that was read to within ±0.01 mm. Pressures using the oil manometer were 

measured to within an estimated accuracy of ±0.02 mmHg. Pressures greater than 40 mmHg were obtained 

using the mercury-filled manometer and are accurate to ±0.1 mmHg. Once equilibrium was established, the 

pressure and temperature were recorded. The ballast pressure was then increased and the next addition of 

the second compound was made. After the still temperature had equilibrated, the still contents were 

degassed, and the ballast pressure was slowly adjusted until the still temperature was approximately 2.5°C 

cooler than the bath temperature. 

Vapor Pressure

The reported vapor pressure data were also measured using the glass still apparatus shown in Figure 5 using 

the method described previously. 
4 

Heat Capacity

Heat capacity measurements were made in the stirred calorimeter shown in Figure 6. The calorimeter was a 

350 cc cell with an internal calibration heater and thermowell which contained a five junction thermocouple 

and a platinum resistance thermometer. The pressure was monitored (but not recorded) by a precision 

pressure gauge teed to the calorimeter inlet line. The calorimeter was surrounded by an adiabatic shield 

which was heated independently by the surrounding bath fluid to maintain the shield at the desired 

experimental temperature. 

The calorimeter was charged with 250 to 350 grams of the liquid to be tested, depending on the density of the 

compound. This ensured that the calorimeter was approximately 90% liquid-full by volume. The heat capacity 

measurements were made by electrically heating the calorimeter and contents over a measured temperature 

interval with a known amount of electrical power. Heat-up rates ranged from 0.50 to 1.25°C per minute, with 

each fluid being heated at four to five different rates. The reported correlations are averaged over these runs. 

Data were continually logged every 4 seconds for the duration of the heating program. 

The heat capacity of the contents was determined by subtracting the known heat capacity of the calorimeter. 

Water and o-xylene were used as calibration fluids to independently determine the heat capacity of the 

calorimeter. To do this, the calorimeter was heated electrically while filled with either pure water or pure oxylene. The heat capacity of the calorimeter was then determined by difference when the heat capacity of the 

water or o-xylene was subtracted from the total heat capacity over the temperature interval. 

Table 6 lists the source and CAS numbers of the compounds used in this study. 

 
5 

Data Reduction 

Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium

The results of PTx measurements, which are total pressure as a function of charge composition at constant 

temperature, were reduced to equilibrium phase compositions and activity and fugacity coefficients. The 

Soave equation of state [Soave, G., Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, 

Chem. Eng. Sci., 1972, 27, 1197-1203] was used to represent the vapor phase while the NRTL activity 

coefficient equation [Renon, H. and Prausnitz, J. M., Local Compositions in Thermodynamic Excess Functions for

Liquid Mixtures, AIChE Journal, 1968, 14, 135-144] was used to represent the liquid phase non-idealities in the 

data reduction procedure. The Soave binary interaction parameters used in the data reduction procedure 

were assumed to be zero. 

To derive equilibrium phase compositions from PTx data, an iterative procedure is used to solve the basic 

equation of vapor-liquid equilibrium, given as follows: 

( )











 −

=

RT

V P P

Py x P

o

o i i

i

o

φiiγ iii φ exp (1) 

where P is the total pressure, yi

 is the vapor mole fraction of component i, φi is the fugacity coefficient of 

component i, xi is the liquid mole fraction of component i, γi is the activity coefficient of component i, Pi° is the 

vapor pressure of component i at system temperature, φi° is the fugacity coefficient of component i at system 

temperature and corresponding vapor pressure of component i, and the exponential term is the Poynting 

correction where Vi is the molar volume of component i. In the above expression, it is assumed that the molar 

volume of component i is equal to the partial molar volume of component i at these conditions. Pure 

component molar volumes were calculated from correlations of density data. 

The data reduction procedure consists of fitting the pressure data to Equation (1) across the entire 

composition range by adjusting the parameters of the activity coefficient model. The NRTL activity coefficient 

equation was used in the data reduction procedure and is shown below: 

NRTL equation: 

( ) 































+

+ 















+

= 2

2

2

ln

B A AB

AB AB

A B BA

BA

A B BA

x x G

G

x x G

G

x

τ

γ τ (2) 

( ) 































+

+ 















+

= 2

2

2

ln

A B BA

BA BA

B A AB

AB

B A AB

x x G

G

x x G

G

x

τ

γ τ (3) 

where 

exp( ) exp( ) GAB = −ατ AB GBA = −ατ BA (4) 

 
6 

As a beginning point, the ideal-solution parameters of the activity coefficient model are selected. Then, 

assuming the fugacity coefficients are unity, Equation (1) is solved for the product Pyi for each component. 

The calculated pressure is then the sum of these products: 

= ∑( ) Pcalc Pyi

 (5) 

The vapor mole fraction for each component is then determined: 

calc

i

i

P

Py

y = (6) 

With values for the vapor-phase composition, the fugacity coefficients can be calculated from the equation of 

state. 

The next step is to correct the liquid composition for the amounts of each component in the vapor, return to 

the step in which the activity coefficients are calculated, and continue iterating until the calculated pressure 

converges. 

This procedure is performed for each measured point across the composition range. The calculated pressures 

are compared with the measured pressures. The activity coefficient parameters are adjusted to improve the 

fit of the total pressure data, and the entire procedure is repeated until the best fit of the measured total 

pressure curve is obtained. 

Vapor Pressure

Vapor pressure data have been correlated to the Antoine equation. The Antoine equation is as follows: 

T C

B

P A

+

ln = + (7) 

The reported deviations have been calculated according to the following equation: 

corr

meas

P

P

Dev =log (8) 

The objective function used to correlate the vapor pressure data was: 

2 OF = Dev (9) 

Heat Capacity

The heat capacities of the mixtures were determined by subtracting the known heat capacity of the 

calorimeter from the total heat capacity of the system. For this experiment the calorimeter heat capacity was 

determined by first heating the calorimeter electrically while filled with pure water and pure o-xylene. The 

heat capacity of the calorimeter was determined by difference when the heat capacity of the water or o-xylene 

was subtracted from the total heat capacity over the temperature interval. 
7 

The critical constants used in the data reduction procedure are reported in Table 7. Critical constants for 5-

chloromethyl furfural and ethyl 5-methyl-2-furanoate were calculated using a first order group contribution 

method. [Poling, B. E., Prausnitz, J. M., and O’Connell, J. P., Method of Wilson and Jasperson, The Properties of 

Gases and Liquids, 2001, 2.9-2.12] 

 
8 

Acknowledgments 

We wish to express our gratitude to xF Technologies in Albuquerque for the opportunity to participate in their 

process design and research efforts. We greatly appreciate the guidance and constructive support of Aviad 

Cahana and Luzheng Zhang xF Technologies. 

The authors also wish to thank their coworkers who helped measure the data with precision and meticulous 

effort; special thanks to Mark Swenson, Lane Gardner, and Gabriel Kelly. 
9 

Tables 

Table 1. PTx Measurement Results for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 80°C 

Relative

Run Volatility

# Charge Liquid Vapor Meas Calc CMF EMF CMF EMF EMF/CMF

2 100.00 100.00 100.00 1.49 1.49 1.000 1.492 1.000 1.000 4.891

2 94.97 94.97 80.59 1.78 1.76 1.002 1.389 1.000 1.000 4.547

2 90.13 90.13 68.15 1.99 1.99 1.006 1.311 1.000 1.000 4.269

2 85.22 85.23 58.86 2.18 2.19 1.014 1.246 1.000 1.000 4.032

2 80.31 80.31 51.57 2.38 2.38 1.023 1.195 1.000 1.000 3.830

2 75.42 75.42 45.60 2.54 2.55 1.033 1.153 1.000 1.000 3.659

2 70.50 70.50 40.49 2.72 2.71 1.044 1.119 1.000 1.000 3.513

2 65.32 65.32 35.77 2.87 2.88 1.057 1.090 1.000 1.000 3.382

2 60.41 60.41 31.78 3.03 3.04 1.070 1.069 1.000 1.000 3.276

2 55.55 55.55 28.18 3.19 3.19 1.082 1.052 1.000 1.000 3.186

1 53.33 53.33 26.62 3.26 3.25 1.088 1.045 1.000 1.000 3.150

1 48.40 48.40 23.36 3.42 3.40 1.100 1.033 1.000 1.000 3.077

2 45.63 45.63 21.63 3.48 3.49 1.107 1.027 1.000 1.000 3.041

1 43.44 43.44 20.30 3.55 3.55 1.113 1.023 1.000 1.000 3.015

1 38.57 38.57 17.48 3.70 3.70 1.124 1.016 1.000 1.000 2.964

1 33.92 33.92 14.94 3.85 3.84 1.134 1.011 1.000 1.000 2.922

1 29.31 29.31 12.55 3.98 3.98 1.143 1.007 1.000 1.000 2.888

1 24.60 24.60 10.25 4.13 4.13 1.152 1.004 1.000 1.000 2.858

1 20.02 20.02 8.11 4.27 4.27 1.159 1.002 1.000 0.999 2.835

1 15.34 15.34 6.05 4.40 4.42 1.166 1.001 1.000 0.999 2.815

1 10.65 10.65 4.08 4.55 4.56 1.171 1.000 0.999 0.999 2.800

1 6.03 6.03 2.25 4.73 4.71 1.176 1.000 0.999 0.999 2.789

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.90 4.90 1.179 1.000 0.999 0.999 2.780

Mole Percent CMF Pressure, mmHg Activity Coeff Fugacity Coeff

NRTL Equation Parameters: 

τ12 = -1.6598 

τ21 = -1.0260 

α = 0.20 
10 

Table 2. PTx Measurement Results for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 110°C 

Relative

Run Volatility

# Charge Liquid Vapor Meas Calc CMF EMF CMF EMF EMF/CMF

2 100.00 100.00 100.00 8.85 8.85 1.000 1.317 0.999 0.999 3.322

2 95.00 95.01 85.80 9.73 9.82 1.001 1.250 0.999 0.999 3.148

2 90.09 90.10 75.18 10.58 10.66 1.005 1.197 0.999 0.999 3.004

2 85.18 85.19 66.62 11.34 11.44 1.010 1.154 0.999 0.999 2.882

2 80.23 80.23 59.37 12.12 12.16 1.016 1.119 0.999 0.999 2.778

2 75.49 75.49 53.36 12.91 12.82 1.023 1.093 0.999 0.999 2.693

2 70.47 70.48 47.71 13.61 13.49 1.031 1.070 0.999 0.999 2.616

2 65.61 65.61 42.77 14.26 14.12 1.039 1.052 0.999 0.999 2.554

2 60.73 60.74 38.22 14.88 14.74 1.047 1.039 0.999 0.999 2.501

2 55.82 55.83 33.98 15.45 15.36 1.055 1.028 0.999 0.999 2.456

2 45.40 45.40 25.86 16.57 16.66 1.071 1.012 0.999 0.998 2.384

1 35.20 35.20 18.85 17.80 17.92 1.083 1.004 0.998 0.998 2.339

1 30.24 30.25 15.73 18.42 18.54 1.088 1.002 0.998 0.998 2.324

1 25.80 25.81 13.07 18.97 19.09 1.091 1.001 0.998 0.998 2.314

1 20.76 20.77 10.20 19.65 19.73 1.094 1.000 0.998 0.998 2.307

1 15.78 15.78 7.53 20.28 20.36 1.095 1.000 0.998 0.998 2.303

1 10.76 10.76 4.98 20.88 20.99 1.096 1.000 0.998 0.998 2.302

1 6.07 6.07 2.73 21.55 21.59 1.095 1.000 0.998 0.998 2.303

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.36 22.36 1.092 1.000 0.998 0.998 2.309

Mole Percent CMF Pressure, mmHg Activity Coeff Fugacity Coeff

NRTL Equation Parameters: 

τ12 = -1.6232 

τ21 = -1.0848 

α = 0.20 

 
11 

Table 3. Vapor Pressure Measurements for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural 

T oC Measured Correlated % Deviation

72.04 0.78 0.81 -1.74%

77.04 1.16 1.17 -0.42%

80.00 1.49 1.44 1.43%

82.01 1.77 1.66 2.94%

87.09 2.35 2.32 0.64%

93.01 3.18 3.35 -2.35%

98.05 4.42 4.52 -0.99%

103.01 5.94 5.99 -0.31%

108.05 7.80 7.86 -0.31%

110.00 8.85 8.70 0.74%

113.00 10.12 10.15 -0.14%

118.02 13.04 13.00 0.10%

123.06 16.67 16.51 0.41%

Pressure, mmHg

lnP(mmHg) = 13.7867 – 2604.98 / (T (K) – 159.02) 

Calculated Normal Boiling Point = 250.03°C 

 
12 

Table 4. Vapor Pressure Measurements for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate 

T oC Measured Correlated % Deviation

54.92 0.67 0.75 -4.73%

56.96 0.85 0.88 -1.65%

60.06 1.16 1.12 1.36%

62.08 1.37 1.31 1.90%

65.00 1.62 1.63 -0.26%

65.01 1.73 1.63 2.76%

68.01 2.14 2.02 2.55%

70.00 2.43 2.32 2.00%

71.02 2.64 2.49 2.59%

75.03 3.43 3.26 2.20%

75.05 3.44 3.26 2.29%

80.00 4.90 4.48 3.87%

80.05 4.68 4.49 1.76%

85.02 6.25 6.08 1.18%

93.05 9.73 9.63 0.45%

105.02 17.52 18.00 -1.18%

110.00 22.36 22.92 -1.07%

115.01 27.69 28.92 -1.89%

125.02 42.47 44.73 -2.25%

135.02 58.13 66.87 -6.08%

145.00 92.21 96.90 -2.15%

155.03 132.42 137.01 -1.48%

155.02 131.95 136.95 -1.61%

165.07 184.78 189.10 -1.00%

175.03 254.85 254.88 -0.01%

185.06 347.73 337.47 1.30%

195.05 461.36 438.65 2.19%

205.01 620.01 560.68 4.37%

214.01 836.10 691.10 8.27%

Pressure, mmHg

lnP(mmHg) = 14.1537 – 2562.76 / (T (K) – 150.63) 

Calculated Normal Boiling Point = 218.26°C 

 
13 

Table 5. Heat Capacity of 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate 

a. The measured temperature range for CMF is 

smaller due to solidification at low 

temperatures and decomposition at high 

temperatures. 

 

CMF EMF

A 1.2041 2.0007

B 0.002384 0.001346

Temp (°C) CMF EMF

10.0 a

-----

a

2.014

15.0 ----- 2.021

20.0 ----- 2.028

25.0 ----- 2.034

30.0 1.276 2.041

35.0 1.288 2.048

40.0 1.299 2.055

45.0 1.311 2.061

50.0 1.323 2.068

55.0 1.335 2.075

60.0 1.347 2.081

65.0 1.359 2.088

70.0 1.371 2.095

75.0 1.383 2.102

80.0 1.395 2.108

85.0 1.407 2.115

90.0 1.419 2.122

95.0 1.431 2.129

100.0 1.443 2.135

105.0 ----- 2.142

110.0 ----- 2.149

115.0 ----- 2.156

120.0 ----- 2.162

Correlations (J/g∙°C)

Heat Capacity (J/g∙°C) = A + B∙(T°C)

Liquid Heat Capacity
14 

Table 6. Source and CAS Numbers of Chemicals 

 

Chemical Name Symbol CAS No. Supplier

5-Chloromethyl Furfural CMF 1623-88-7 xF Tech

Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate EMF 14003-12-4 xF Tech
15 

Table 7. Physical Properties of Chemicals 

Chemical Name Formula MW Tc

, K Pc, bar Zc ω

5-Chloromethyl Furfural C6H5ClO2 144.56 769.36 46.39 0.243 0.5349

Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate C8H10O3 154.16 688.20 32.65 0.237 0.6036
16 

Figures 

Figure 1. PTx Plot for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 80°C 

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Pressure, mmHg

Mole Fraction Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate

PTx Data

Raoult's Law

PTx Correlation

PTy Correlation
17 

Figure 2. PTx Plot for Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate + 5-Chloromethyl Furfural at 110°C 

 

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Pressure, mmHg

Mole Fraction Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate

PTx Data

Raoult's Law

PTx Correlation

PTy Correlation
18 

Figure 3. Vapor Pressure Plot for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate 

 

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00

Pressure, mmHg

1000/T (K)

CMF Data

CMF Correlation

EMF Data

EMF Correlation
19 

Figure 4. Liquid Heat Capacities for 5-Chloromethyl Furfural and Ethyl 5-Methyl-2-Furanoate 

 

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Heat Capacity, J/g∙°C

Temperature, °C

CMF Correlation

EMF Correlation
Figure 5. Glass Still Used for 

 

20 

Vapor Pressure and VLE Measurements
Figure 6. Calorimeter used for Heat Capacity 

21 

Measurements