1. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Pdf
2. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Class
3. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters 2
4. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Worksheet
5. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters
6. Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Free

Chapter 35, A Short History of the Hansen Solubility Parameters

Buy CRC Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters, Second Edition 2 by Barton, Allan F.M. (ISBN: 766) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders. The standard book on HSP science is Dr Hansen's Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook, Second Edition published in 2007 by CRC Press. It is an official CRC Bestseller! The Table of Contents gives a good idea of the vast scope of the book and its authoritative nature. Barton, Allan F. CRC handbook of solubility parameters and other cohesion parameters / Allan F.M.

Figure 1‑1Where it all began: the initial HSP values for the 88 solvents were determined the hard way on this equipment in Hansen’s lab. δD is in the direction of the rods which had rings at regular intervals. δD = 14.9 and δP= δH=0 is at the lower foremost corner where there is a white label for n-hexane [14.9, 0, 0]. Magnets with wires glued to them were used to plot data for the provisional values for the three parameters using colored beads.

The Main Track

Estimation of Hansen solubility parameters using multivariate nonlinear QSPR modeling with COSMO screening charge density moments. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 2011.

I was bornin Louisville, Kentucky. I graduated from the University of Louisville, SpeedScientific School with a B.Ch.E in 1961. Wanting to continue for a doctorate, Iwas in the process of working for a Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin,Madison, having gotten a Masters degree, but wanting to take a year in Denmarkbefore having to “settle down” with the advanced degree. My father came fromDenmark, arriving in the US in 1929, and my mother’s family came to the US inthe late 1800’s. Not really knowing what had been done to accommodate a usefulstudy, I arrived in Denmark to find that I was able to stay not one year, buttwo years, provided I wrote a thesis to obtain a degree then called “teknisklicentiat”. I accepted and delivered the thesis in exactly 24 months asplanned. I knew from earlier correspondence that I could either work on anautomatic process control project or on a question in the coatings industryrelated to why solvent is retained in polymer films for years. I chose thelatter.

When I wasfinishing the work for the technical licentiate degree in 1964 [1] there were acouple of Master’s candidates working as a team on the use of solubilityparameters in the coatings industry at the Central Research Laboratory of theDanish Paint and Varnish Industry. I advised them occasionally and this leadindirectly to the development of what are now called Hansen solubilityparameters. I was formally associated with the Technical University of Denmark(at that time called Den polytekniske Læreanstalt) where Prof. AndersBjörkman arranged for my stay. The actual work was done at the abovelaboratory led by Mr. Hans Kristian Raaschou Nielsen, in a rather small roomwith a slanting ceiling on the uppermost floor at Odensegade 14, Copenhagen Ø.

As statedabove, my licentiate thesis was to explain how solvent could be retained incoatings for many years. It was thought that this was caused by hydrogenbonding. I showed solvent was retained because of very low diffusioncoefficients. It is especially difficult to get through the surface of acoating where there is essentially no solvent and diffusion coefficients arevery low. The diffusion controlled phase followed a phase where most of thesolvent initially present freely evaporated. In the meantime it was necessaryto account for the hydrogen bonding capability of the test solvents, because ofwhat was believed at the time. The work of Harry Burrell [2] provided the basisfor selecting test solvents. He qualitatively ranked a number of solvents accordingto weak, moderate, or strong hydrogen bonding. The licentiate thesis did nottreat solubility parameters as such, dealing only with diffusion and filmdrying, since it was not hydrogen bonding or the solubility parameter that hadanything to do with the problem, other than allowing solution in the firstplace. There was, however, established a battery of solvents and knowledgeabout solubility parameters at the laboratory, and the Master’s candidates wereto further the development of this area.

An articleby Blanks and Prausnitz appeared [3] and I advised the students to make use ofthe new method of dividing the Hildebrand parameter into two parts, one fordispersion interactions and one for what was called “polar” interactions. Theydid not do so, having already gotten into their study and they needed to finishas planned, being short on time. After I turned in my licentiate thesis forevaluation, I looked at their experimental data using two dimensional plots ofthe dispersion parameter versus the new “polar parameter” as described byBlanks and Prausnitz. I could see there were well-defined regions of solubilityon the plots. For some polymers there were bad solvents within the good regionof the 2D plots. For other polymers these were the good solvents. The otherones had now become bad. The one group was largely alcohols, glycols, and etheralcohols, with the other being ketones, acetates, etc. It seemed logical to usea third dimension, pushing the bad solvents into another dimension, and thiswas the basis for the original terminology “The Three Dimensional SolubilityParameter” that was used in the original publications in 1967 [4-7]. I followedthe rule that the sum of energies in the (now) three partial parameters had toequal the total reflected by the Hildebrand parameter, recognizing that Blanksand Prausnitz were correct as far as they had gone. No one up to that point hadrecognized that the hydrogen bonding effects were included along with the polarand dispersion effects within the Hildebrand parameter itself. The Hildebrand parameter is basedsolely on the total cohesive energy (density) as measured quantitatively by thelatent heat of vaporization (minus RT). Hydrogen bonding was considered toospecial to allow such a simple approach as the HSP division of the totalcohesion energy into dispersion, polar, and hydrogen bonding contributions.Efforts prior to Blanks and Prausnitz had used the Hildebrand parametertogether with some more or less empirical hydrogen bonding parameter, forexample, in efforts to make useful solubility plots. Barton’s handbooks reviewthese earlier attempts in an exemplary manner, and as usual I refer to hishandbooks for these developments rather than repeating their content [8,9].

Prior tothe public defense of the licentiate thesis, I visited the US, returning toDenmark for the big day. While in the US I visited the Univ. of Wisconsin totry to establish a continuation of the earlier studies based on the promisingwork on solubility parameters that had become obvious to me, at least.Professors Ferry (of WLF equation fame), DiBenedetto, and Crosby, all wouldaccept me, but only working on projects for which they already had funding.After return to Denmark for the public defense, Prof. Björkman urged me tostay on to complete a Danish dr. techn. (similar to D.Sc.). I accepted, andfound a room with a relative, rather than in the student dormitory where I alsogot indoctrinated into the student life of the time in Denmark. 1967 was a bigyear. My father had to come to Denmark twice, once for a wedding and once forthe public defense of the dr. techn. thesis, an event he could not quitebelieve would happen. He himself was a chemical engineering graduate from thesame school, and knew that not that many got so far. It is my belief thatbecause of the privileges provided by Prof. Björkman (just do it at yourown speed), that I am the youngest (29) to ever have been awarded this degree.The requirements of the technical doctorate are that one presents and defendshis or her own ideas in a written publication. This must then be defended in avery formal (coat and tails) public event with official opponents that must notlast longer than 6 hours. There was newspaper coverage with an audience of 125,filling every seat in the auditorium. My official opponents were Prof. AndersBjörkman (polymers), Prof. Bengt Rånby (polymers), and Prof.Jørgen Koefoed (physical chemistry). The event lasted about 4 hours. Asan indication of the iconoclastic nature of this thesis, Prof. Koefoedchallenged in advance that I could not assign the three parameters toformamide, and that the mixture of equal molar amounts of chloroform andacetone must give deviations. I then proceeded to assign the three parametersto formamide by calculation and experiment, and tried to experimentally testall of my test solutes in the acetone/chloroform mixture. There were no errorsin the predictions. The thesis was accepted.

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Pdf

I initiallyhad a three dimensional model as shown in the opening figure made with metalrods at equal spacing supported by clear poly(methyl methacrylate) sides. Therewere rings on the rods at uniform intervals. The D parameter was in thedirection of the rods, varying from 7 to 10 in the old units (cal/cc)^½.Each of what ultimately became about 90 solvents was represented by a givenmagnet to which a wire was glued so that given points in the space could belabeled. A small green bead was place on the tip of the wire for a good solventand a small red one was used for a bad solvent. One could thus make a 3Dsolubility plot for each of the 33 solutes. These were mainly polymers chosento potentially have such widely different solubility properties as possible. Ifa given solvent seemed to be giving consistent errors, its P and H parameters wereadjusted, keeping the D parameter constant, and the magnet with wire tip wasmoved. This trial and error procedure clearly showed the value of the threedimensional methodology. Tests were made with mixtures of non-solvents. If sucha mixture dissolved a given solute, the solvents had to be on opposite sides ofthe region of solubility. It they did not they were on the same side. Thismethod was used to confirm the parameters for as many of the solvents as wasreasonable. I then took a solvent and willfully placed it on the wrong side ofthe system and started all over. It became obvious that the system wasinverting, so it was concluded that these numbers were reasonably good, butwould probably need revision at some time. Publications were prepared.

The firstrevision came rather quickly in 1967 from the insight of a colleague at theDanish laboratory, Klemen Skaarup. He found the Böttcher equation for thepolar parameter, did a lot of calculations, and plotting, and the initialvalues were revised accordingly. The changes involved in these revisions werenot that great as can be seen from the earlier publications. Mr. Skaarup wasalso responsible for the first use of the “4” in the key equation of themethodology, finding this would give spheres rather than spheroids for thesolubility regions. The “4” was generally considered as empirical for manyyears thereafter.

These“three dimensional” concepts were reported in three articles in the Journal ofPaint Technology and in the dr. techn. thesis, which also included an expandedsection on diffusion in polymers and film formation, in 1967 [4-7]. I havereviewed the dr. techn. thesis many times, and have found nothing wrong with ityet. It can be found as a PDF file on my website www.hansen-solubility.com.

Just priorto the public defense of the dr. techn. thesis I corresponded with Prof.Prausnitz to see whether the studies could be continued with him. The responsewas that there was no funding.Ithen took a job at the PPG Industries Research and Development Center in thePittsburgh area. These eight years were very rewarding with a remarkablyinspiring leadership “Making Science Useful” (Dr. Howard Gerhard and Dr. MarcoWismer). There were many confirmations that the methodology could be used togreat advantage in practical situations. I was popular in the purchasingdepartment during the solvent crisis (oil crisis) where one had to buy whateverwas available on the spot. I could immediately on the phone confirm whether ornot a given solvent could be used and the usual testing was not done. Shiploadsof solvent were bought on this basis only.

Dr. AlanBeerbower at Esso (now Exxon) was just waiting for me, as he said it himself,and took up the developments in the 1967 publications in many areas as can beseen in our article in the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology [10] and in hismany publications on a variety of topics, often related to surfaces,lubrication, and surfactant behavior, for example in [11,12]. He developedgroup contributions, adding to what was known at that time (citing Fedors),that I used and reported in the handbooks [13,14]. It was Dr. Beerbower whofirst used the term Hansen plot as far as I know. Dr. Beerbower authored abrochure for Esso that appeared in 1970 entitled “Parameters of Solubility”. Hereis the cover of that handbook and inside, Beerbower’s reference to the Hansenprinciple:

Figure 1‑2Perhaps thefirst reference to Hansen (component) parameters in the literature fromBeerbower’s 1970 handbook and a gratifying confirmation of 97% accuracy forprediction of solubility.

I have put one of his figures in theHandbooks [13,14]. In the Second Edition this is on page 338. This figure alsoappeared in Beerbower’s publications but I got it only as a personalcommunication. Sometime after the appearance of the article in the Encyclopediaof Chemical Technology [10] in 1971, where the terminology was not changed, probablybecause I did not use it, Hansen (solubility/cohesion) parameters replaced the“three dimensional” terminology on a more general basis. Van Krevelen did notlike three dimensional systems, but did the group contributions for the“solubility parameters” anyway in his “Properties of Polymers” from 1975, sothe change in terminology was not complete at this point in time.Barton’ handbook in 1983 used the Hansenparameter terminology as cited below. I have never had contact with VanKrevelen. A US Coast Guard project in 1988-9 studying chemical protectiveclothing brought me back on track in terms of adding a significant number ofsolvents to the database. I was to find solvents for testing that couldpermeate a PTFE body suit after having established a correlation for thosesolvents that had been tested. As it turned out there were indeed quite a fewsolvents that permeated the PTFE suitthat were characterized by molar volumes less than about 60 cc/mole andmonomers with terminal double bonds that could be somewhat larger [13,14] (seethe figure on page 247 of the second edition of the handbook). I actuallyinitially had a technician looking at the published Van Krevelen groupcontribution approach early in this project, before realizing that I had to doit myself with the Beerbower group contributions that I had gotten as a privatecommunication. The Van Krevelen and Hoy approaches are now outdated, beingsurpassed by the work of Stefanis and Panayiotou (See for example Chapter 3 inthe Second edition of the handbook or their other publications. HSP estimates by the S-P statisticalthermodynamics methodology are also included in HSPiP). Even this has beenoutdated very recently by the work of Dr. Hiroshi Yamamoto in the HSPiP whereit is called the Y-MB method for Yamamoto Molecular Breaking. Both Hiroshi andI independently found that one did much better when using larger “groups” forthe still larger molecules, even to the extent of directly using the existingHSP of multifunctional molecules as a whole as a single group.

Thesuperiority of modern computers that are capable of working with huge databasesto generate correlations with rapidity and flexibility stands in contrast towhat was done earlier. The first calculations for dividing the latent heatsinto partial solubility parameters were done using a slide rule. Indeed therewere computers that could have helped with this at the time, but this costmoney, and the data were very scattered in the literature. The first computerprogram to calculate the HSP spheres from experimental data was probably thatat PPG Industries around 1968. My lab there was set up to routinely determinethe experimental data that helped to optimize solvents and to predictcompatibility. Safety and the environment were emphasized. A similar programwas available at the single, central computer of the Scandinavian Paint andPrinting Ink Research Institute, and later on my son, Kristian, wrote the sametype of program for use at our home on a Commodore 64. This typically tookabout 20-30 minutes to calculate the HSP sphere from data on approximately 40solvents. Much of the data in the handbooks was done on this computer.

I left PPGin 1976 to become director of the Scandinavian Paint and Printing Ink ResearchInstitute, being invited to do so largely at the suggestion of the Swedishparticipants (Prof. Bengt Rånby, Prof. Sven Brohult). This was aDanish-Swedish organization at the time, but when I left 10 years later,Finland and Norway were also part of the Nordic cooperation. These 10 yearsalso led to further progress and development of knowledge in the area, mostlyin the further characterization of materials and from applications in industry.Research as such was not permitted at my final place of employment, FORCETechnology, so the developments were not as extensive as what might have beenexpected. I did manage to write the first edition of the handbook (at home)[13], and to search for and find what I believe to be theoretical justificationfor the “4” in the key HSP equation. The Prigogine corresponding states theoryof polymer solutions has the “4” in the first term of the free energy equation,but only when the geometric mean is used to predict interactions between unlikemolecules. Other averages give quite different results. The HSP approach also uses thecorresponding states approach wisely chosen by Blanks and Prausnitz, comparingdata for a given solvent with corresponding states data for its look-alikehydrocarbon solvent (homomorph). Blanks and Prausnitz inherently also assumedthe geometric mean for the molecular dipole-dipole interactions. To this daythere are those who protest inclusion of the hydrogen bonding as is done in theHansen methodology. These interactions are considered non-symmetrical with onlysymmetrical interactions being describable by the solubility parameter theory.It seems that if dipolar molecular interactions and the orientation involvedare included, there should be no objection to include the hydrogen bondingmolecular orientation. The fact that the dispersion, dipolar, and hydrogenbonding energies sum to the total cohesion energy for thousands of chemicals isdifficult to dispute as well.

One mightwonder when usage of the HSP concept first took off. I cannot answer this withany certainty. I have concentrated on my direct responsibilities in industrialenvironments, trying to follow the relevant literature as well as possible. Isense that industrial use has been extensive even very shortly after the 1967work appeared. These uses are rarely published. I was shown the number ofcitations of my publications as a function of year, and it was clear thatsomething happened around 2000, after the first edition of the handbookappeared. The academics, who must certainly give the majority of reference citations,first really took interest the past 10 years or so. The key persons involved inthe development and spreading of the concept almost all had direct or closeindustrial ties including myself, Beerbower, Hoy, Van Krevelen, Abbott, andYamamoto. The academics would necessarily include Patterson and Delmas (whoshowed negative heats of mixing were found as expected from solubilityparameter theory) and Panayiotou and coworkers who put the hydrogen bondingcohesion energy into a statistical thermodynamics context with success. Thefollowing is a typical academic reaction from the late 1960’sto my early work. This is taken from aseries of lecture notes/thesis from Denmark. I prefer not to name the authorhere. Quote: The “theory” is applied to a very complicated systems, such assolutions of macromolecules in polar and hydrogen-bonded solvents andsolvent-mixtures. Even though the method seems to have some technical value,the theoretical basis is extremely weak. It is only to hope that serious work withthe solubility parameter theory is never judged with such empirical methods inmind”. End of Quote. This sums up the majority of the academics early views on“the three dimensional solubility parameter”, and there are presumably stillmany who hold this view or something similar to it judging from the lack ofknowledge in the area that I find during my journal review activity. To myknowledge, with only a few notable exceptions, there has been only very limitedentry into classrooms atuniversities, although there have been many Ph.D. thesis that have made use ofthe concept. The full social and economic potential of this methodology willnot be realized until universities include this in introductory courses. Afterall, the concept is very simple and very useful.

The Side Track

For thosewho want to know a little more of what went on behind the scenes here are somemore personal and informal comments made in response to questions from Prof.Abbott.

The Hoysolubility parameters just sort of appeared some time after I was at PPG. Onehad to write to Union Carbide to get a booklet with the tables. The tables werearranged according to alphabetical order, evaporation rate, total solubilityparameter, polar solubility parameter, hydrogen bonding solubility parameter,and boiling point. The first booklet appeared in 1969.These values were also later revised forsome solvents. Quoting from a letter dated May 23, 1988, from Union Carbideaccompanying a booklet dated 1985 - “Enclosed is a recent copy of the “HoyTables of Solubility Parameters” you requested. It is basically the same as the1975 edition, but some updating of the data was done in 1981. Ken sends hisgreetings to you and looks forward to seeing you in Athens. Signed R.L.Bradshaw.” The Hoy parameters appeared in Barton’s handbook from 1983 [8]. Theyapparently gained wide usage in the USA because there were data for manysolvents not in my published work and perhaps also because of the major influenceand support of Union Carbide. Once established in a given location, there hasbeen a tendency for interest in them to continue. I have never fully understoodhow these were calculated. The Hoy dispersion parameter was consistently lowerthan that found from the corresponding states approach, and the expansionfactor alpha appeared in both the polar and hydrogen bonding terms, so I feltthey were not independent. The dispersion parameter was found by subtractingthe polar and hydrogen bonding contributions from the total. I have alwayswarned not to mix the Hoy parameters with the original HSP. The Hoy parametersappeared as well in the first edition of Barton’s handbook (1983) with thetitle “Hildebrand and Hansen Parameters for Liquids at 25°C, Determined by Hoyas Described in Sections 5.9 and 7.1”. The Hansen parameter terminology wastherefore fully introduced at this time. I met Ken Hoy on many occasions andfully respected his work, also in other areas. I have used the Hoy totalparameter on many occasions, and religiously went through the table in theBarton handbook from 1983 using the Hoy data for Hildebrand parameters andmolar volumes/density for many solvents in a transfer to my own HSP. Only a fewsolvents (larger hydrocarbons) were not included in my list.

I gave 5presentations at Gordon Research Conferences starting in 1967 at the Coatingsconference. Here I met Harry Burrell who gave a talk on hiding without pigment(using light scattering from microvoids), but he had dropped further solubilityparameter work by that time. There was also a talk by Crowley, Teague, and Lowefrom Tennessee Eastman describing their three dimensional approach to polymersolubility which had appeared the year before. They used the Hildebrandparameter, the dipole moment, and an experimental (empirical) hydrogen bondingparameter that I think was found from mixing solvents to precipitate polymers,much like Kauri Gum is precipitated from n-butanol solution to find the KBvalues. These were not generally used and are hardly mentioned in the Bartonhandbooks, but the thinking was in the right direction. I was admittedly alittle disturbed as to where they had gotten their idea, having sent amanuscript to the Journal of Paint Technology earlier, presumably early in1966. I withdrew the manuscript for some reason, perhaps for reasons ofknowledge gained in the meantime. I had a feeling the Eastman people had gottenaccess to this report, but was assured by Crowley that they had not been awareof it.It was at this GordonConference that PPG became aware of my work, thus leading to employment.

At anAdhesion Gordon Conference I was confronted in the discussion after thepresentation by a comment from Fred Fowkes, an outstanding surface chemist. Hesaid that I must have invoked Phlogistine theory (everything is made fromearth, fire, water, and air) to assign a hydrogen bonding parameter to toluene.I did not know what this was at the time (A Google search on the word justconfirmed the spelling and meaning), but I responded that the experimental dataclearly indicated that even toluene had some hydrogen bonding character,although I could not precisely evaluate it. I could see it was less than 2, butgreater than 0, so I took 1, not being too far off in any event. The units hereare (cal/cc)^½. At a Polymers conference my talk led to asubsequent discussion lasting about 1½ hours. The group was splitbetween the academics, who thought it to be bunk, and the industrialists, wholoved it. I got the traditional Amy Lifshitz award for promoting discussion,which meant I had to drink a glass of a clear yellow liquid at the Thursdaynight meeting, having earlier described the attributes of the most common formof saturated urea/water as used through history for various purposes as asolvent and swelling agent. An academic exception was Prof. Tobolski who cameto me the next day with support, relating his own problems with the existingEstablishment (Flory in particular, who delayed publication of a paper to gethis own in first). As an aside, I might mention that I have been told thatthere were three different schools who did not think well of each other at all.There was one school in favor of Hildebrand (Univ. of California), one schoolin favor of Prigogine (Univ. of Florida), and one school in favor of Flory(Stanford). My own personal response to this is that I have never knowledgablyhad problems with any of them. What they all lacked was quantification of thehydrogen bonding effects. Another academic, Prof. Donald Patterson, whom I meton several occasions, was also very supportive and explained things along theway at key points in time to help me along. A paper with his wife (Delmas)showing negative heats of mixing were not only found, but they were found aspredicted by solubility parameter theory, was atrue milestone. This work was verytimely and decisive in changing many minds away from “empirical” to at least“semi-empirical”. A major objection I often met was how can both negative andpositive heats of mixing be accounted for by solubility parameters? ThePattersons cleared this up as mentioned above. Another major question, alsodiscussed briefly above, was that Hildebrand assumed the geometric mean rulefor calculating the interchange energy between two different kinds ofmolecules, and that another rule was probably valid for hydrogen bonding. Myanswer to this has been that polar interactions were accepted as following thegeometric mean rule. Since these are molecular and involve molecularorientation, I could not see why the molecular hydrogen bonding interactionsshould be any different in this respect. In addition all of the many successstories using HSP, where the geometric mean had been assumed followingHildebrand, have convinced me that this is the correct way to do it..

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Class

My lastexperience with Gordon Conferences was also something special. Percy Pierce, myvery close colleague at PPG, had invited me from Denmark around 1980, and I wason after the lobster dinner on Thursday evening. This particularly bad timingdid not help, because I showed pictures of brain scans. The Danish doctors,whom I believed, (but am no longer completely sure of what side effects theremay have been in their patients), claimed to have found and shown brainshrinkage because of solvent exposure. I found out later that this caused(very) great concern in the coatings industry, but no one could talk about itbecause of the rules of the Gordon conferences. Anyway, I have never been to aGordon Conference since. One might question why?

I have notattended international conferences outside of the Nordic countries since about1986. The lack of salesmanship of this kind probably delayed the acceptance inthe academic community. This would have been done on vacation and at my ownexpense and just seemed out of the question under the circumstances. The DanishEstablishment has not been particularly supportive in the past few decades. Themajor grants are controlled by academics for the sole use of academics. I haveonly been significantly employed in industrial environments. There have beensome government incentives for cooperation between industry and academia in aneffort to force the cooperation between the more academic endeavors andindustry. As an example I will cite the 5 year grant for cooperation between myemployer (FORCE Technology), the Risø National Laboratory (now a part ofthe Technical University), and 9 Danish companies. (This was popularly called MONEPOL in the Danish acronym)The consortium worked on Polymer Degradation. This resulted in about 25publications including two Ph.D. theses. The first year was led by my immediatesupervisor, who then decided he could not manage it. I was cautiously askedwhether I would take over and did so with great pleasure for the next 3½years. I could not finish the last half-year, having unwillingly left my job,because of not accepting a forced reduction in working days.

There havebeen many papers on solubility parameters, cohesive energy density, cohesiveparameters, interaction parameters, and the like, and Barton did a greatservice in his thorough collection and reviews of these. The last Bartonhandbook appeared in 1991. I have never had the resources and/or time to dothis sort of thing, but there are many significant reports that have appearedin the interim, the results of which should be collected. I did manage ahandbook that appeared in 1999, but time requirements restricted it mainly towhat I had been doing. When I discovered the “4” in the Prigogine theory in1998, I decided immediately that this had to be published. At the same time Ihad written so many journal articles, that I reasoned all I had to do was theequivalent of writing a few more journal articles and put it into a book.Fortunately CRC thought this was a good idea as well. Donald Patterson was veryhelpful at this time, as acknowledged in the handbook.

Havingwritten the handbooks [13,14] has made me more cautious about handbooks. Therewas indeed no review, and I could write whatever I wanted to. In the secondedition of my Handbook I helped the others who contributed where I could, butmy own writings appeared without review, if that term is used appropriately.Rest assured that I still stand by what was written.

It is sometimes asked why approaches such as UNIFACand HSP have never been coordinated. I can only say that my own attempts toinitiate discussions to this end have never been reciprocated. My own abilityto influence matters was usually restricted by the fact that I worked inindustry. My attempts to remain in or re-enter academia and therefore have thetime and resources to work on such issues were not well-received. All I can sayis that I have done the best I can with the resources available to me.

One small example of this is that a grant to me at theTechnical University of Denmark was stopped after 10 months instead of the 2years I was told would be the case (writing a book on diffusion). Thisultimately led to employment at FORCE Technology. The main import of myconcepts on diffusion in polymers was thusly delayed for over 20 years. Arecent article in the European Polymer Journal (Hansen, C. M., 'Thesignificance of the surface condition in solutions to the diffusion equation:explaining ‘anomalous’ sigmoidal, Case II, and Super Case II absorptionbehavior', European Polymer Journal, Vol. 46, 651-662 (2010) summed upwhat I would have written in the late 1980’s. Some few additional butsignificant pieces of information have appeared in the interim, but the mainmessage is the same (the surface condition must be considered to understand theso-called anomalies).

Finale

In morerecent times the second edition of the handbook was written in semi-retirement[14]. It was recognized again that many others had now done significant work,both academic and industrial, and several of these contributed to this editionof the handbook in their own areas of expertise (John Durkee, GeorgiosKontogeorgis, Costas Panayiotou, Tim Poulsen, Hanno Priebe, Per Redelius, andLaurie Williams). I was grateful for these contributions, without which thesecond edition would not have appeared. Their work advanced acceptance of theHSP methodology.

I met Prof.Abbott through a Danish company called CPS (Chemical Products and Services).CPS grew based on the production of more environmentally acceptable cleanersalready in the late 1980’s,primarily for the serigraphic printing industry. I had gotten a specialgovernment grant for the fledgling company for the development of the firstseries of these cleaners. There were patents with examples based on HSP. Thiscompany was bought by Autotype in England, who were later bought by MacDermidin the USA. Prof. Abbott led the technical activities at Autotype, andnaturally appeared as a member of the board of CPS. On one occasion I rapidlysolved a problem using HSP where Prof. Abbott was having some difficulty. Hehad not been looking in the third dimension (the D parameter). This then led tohis development of suitable software and ultimately to where we are with HSPiPin, as I write this, December, 2010.

The mostrecent and extensive contributions to the HSP theory and its practicalapplications appear in the HSPiP (Hansen Solubility Parameters in Practice)eBook and software. This was started at the suggestion of Prof. Steven Abbott,with Dr. Hiroshi Yamamoto soon joining in. These two have an unbelievable workethic. The volume and quality of what has appeared recently, and is stillappearing on a regular basis, is amazing. All of the significant methods forestimating HSP are included for those who may wish to continue their use. TheStefanis-Panayiotou (S-P) method based on a statistical thermodynamic treatmentas described in the second edition of the Handbook, has already been more orless surpassed in volume and accuracy by the Hiroshi Yamamoto’s molecularbreaking method (Y-MB), supported by the extensive data, numerous comparativecorrelations, and simple software application (just enter SMILES or MolFiles).I am very thankful that what was started in the years 1964-1967 will surviveand be used for a great many purposes for the benefit of society and theenvironment.

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters 2

References

1)Hansen,C.M., The Free Volume Interpretation of the Drying of Lacquer Films, Institutefor the Chemical Industry, The Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen,1964,

2)Burrell, H., A solvent formulating chart,Off. Dig. Fed. Soc. Paint Technol,29(394), 1159-1173, 1957. Burrell, H., The use of the solubility parameterconcept in the United States, VIFederation d’Associations de Techniciens des Industries des Peintures, Vernis,Emaux et Encres d’Imprimerie de l’Europe Continentale, Congress Book, (TheFATIPEC Congress book), 21-30, 1962.

3)Blanks,R.F. and Prausnitz, J.M., Thermodynamics of polymer solubility in polar andnonpolar systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.,3(1), 1-8, 1964.

4)Hansen,C.M., The three dimensional solubility parameter – key to paint componentaffinities I. – Solvents, plasticizers, polymers and resins, J. Paint Technol., 39(505), 104-117,1967.

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Worksheet

5)Hansen,C.M., The three dimensional solubility parameter – key to paint componentaffinities II. Dyes, emulsifiers, mutual solubility and compatibility, andpigments. J. Paint Technol., 39(511),505-510, 1967.

6)Hansen,C.M., The three dimensional solubility parameter – key to paint componentaffinities III. Independent calculation of the parameter components. J. Paint Technol., 39(511), 511-514,1967.

7)Hansen,C.M., The Three Dimensional Solubility Parameter and Solvent DiffusionCoefficient, Doctoral Dissertation, The Technical University of Denmark, DanishTechnical Press, Copenhagen, 1967. PDF file can be found on www.hansen-solubility.com.

8)Barton,A.F.M., Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters, CRCPress, Boca Raton FL, 1983.

9)Barton,A.F.M., Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters, 2^nded., CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, 1991.

10)Hansen,C.M. and Beerbower, A., Solubility Parameters, in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,Suppl. Vol., 2^nd ed., Standen, A., Ed., Interscience, New York,1971, pp 889-910.

11)Beerbower, A., Boundary Lubrication– Scientific and Technical Applications Forecast, AD747336, Office of theChief of Research and Development, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.,1972.

12)Beerbower,A., Surface free energy: a new relationship to bulk energies, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 35, 126-132,1971.

13)Hansen,C.M. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User’s Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton FL,1999.

14)Hansen,C.M., Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User’s Handbook, 2^nd ed., CRCPress, Boca Raton FL, 2007.

E-Book contents | HSP User's Forum

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters

The standard book on HSP science is Dr Hansen's Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook, Second Edition published in 2007 by CRC Press.

It is an official CRC Bestseller!

Barton Handbook Of Solubility Parameters Free

The Table of Contents gives a good idea of the vast scope of the book and its authoritative nature.

Table of Contents

1. Solubility Parameters — An Introduction;C.M. Hansen
   • Hildebrand Parameters and Basic Polymer Solution Thermodynamics
   • Hansen Solubility Parameters
   • Methods and Problems in the Determination of Partial Solubility Parameters
   • Calculation of the Dispersion Solubility Parameter δ_d
   • Calculation of the Polar Solubility Parameter δ_p
   • Calculation of the Hydrogen Bonding Solubility Parameter δ_h
   • Supplementary Calculations And Procedures
   • Hansen Solubility Parameters for Water
2. Theory — The Prigogine Corresponding States Theory, the c₁₂ Interaction Parameter, and the Hansen Solubility Parameters;C.M. Hansen
   • Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSP)
   • Resemblance Between Predictions of Hansen Solubility Parameters and Corresponding States Theories
   • The c₁₂Parameter and Hansen Solubility Parameters
   • Comparison of Calculated and Experimental c₁₂ Parameters
   • General Discussion
   • Postscript
3. Statistical Thermodynamic Calculations of the Hydrogen Bonding, Dipolar, and Dispersion Solubility Parameters;C. Panayiotou
   • Theory
   • Applications
   • Discussion and Conclusions
   • Appendix I: The Acid Dimerization
   • Appendix II: An Alternative Form of the Polar Term
   • Appendix III: A Group-Contribution Method for the Prediction of δ and δ_D
4. Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSP) in Thermodynamic Models for Polymer Solutions;G.M. Kontogeorgis
   • Group Contribution Methods for Estimating Properties of Polymers
   • Activity Coefficients Models Using the HSP
   • Conclusions and Future Challenges
   • Appendix I: An Expression of the FH Model for Multicomponent Mixture
5. Methods of Characterization — Polymers;C.M. Hansen
   • Calculation of Polymer HSP
   • Solubility — Examples
   • Swelling — Examples
   • Melting Point Determinations — Effect of Temperature
   • Environmental Stress Cracking
   • Intrinsic Viscosity Measurements
   • Other Measurement Techniques
6. Methods of Characterization — Surfaces;C.M. Hansen
   • Hansen Solubility Parameter Correlations with Surface Tension (Surface Free Energy)
   • Method to Evaluate the Cohesion Energy Parameters for Surfaces
   • A Critical View of the Critical Surface Tensions
   • A Critical View of the Wetting Tension
   • Additional Hansen Solubility Parameter Surface Characterizations and Comparisons
   • Self-Stratifying Coatings
   • Maximizing Physical Adhesion
7. Methods of Characterization for Pigments, Fillers, and Fibers;C.M. Hansen
   • Methods to Characterize Pigment, Filler, and Fiber Surfaces
   • Discussion — Pigments, Fillers, and Fibers
   • Hansen Solubility Parameter Correlation of Zeta Potential for Blanc Fixe
   • Carbon Fiber Surface Characterization
   • Controlled Adsorption (Self-Assembly)
8. Applications — Coatings and Other Filled Polymer Systems;C.M. Hansen
   • Solvents
   • Techniques for Data Treatment
   • Solvents and Surface Phenomena in Coatings (Self-Assembly)
   • Polymer Compatibility
   • Hansen Solubility Parameter Principles Applied to Understanding Other Filled Polymer Systems
9. Hansen Solubility Parameters of Asphalt, Bitumen and Crude Oils;P. Redelius
   • Models of Bitumen
   • Asphaltenes
   • Molecular Weight
   • Polarity
   • Solubility Parameters of Bitumen
   • Testing of Bitumen Solubility
   • Hildebrand Solubility Parameters
   • Hansen Solubility Parameters (HSP)
   • The Solubility Sphere
   • Computer Program for Calculation and Plotting of the Hansen 3D Pseudosphere
   • Components of Bitumen
   • Bitumen and Polymers
   • Crude Oil
   • Turbidimetric Titrations
   • BISOM Test
10. Determination of Hansen Solubility Parameter Values for Carbon Dioxide;L.L. Williams
    • Methodology
    • One-Component Hildebrand Parameter as a Function of Temperature and Pressure
    • Three-Component (Hansen) Solubility Parameters — Pure CO₂
    • Temperature and Pressure Effects on HSPs: δ_d
    • Temperature and Pressure Effects on HSPs: δ_p
    • Temperature and Pressure Effects on HSPs: δ_h
    • Addendum
    • Appendix I: Ideal Solubility of Gases in Liquids and Published CO₂ Solubility Data
11. Use of Hansen Solubility Parameters to Identify Cleaning Applications for “Designer” Solvents;J. Durkee
    • A Variety of Solvents
    • Pathology of Soils
    • HSP of Multiple-Component Soils
    • Method for Calculating HSP of Composites (Soils or Solvents)
    • More Realistic View About Evaluating HSP of Composite Soils
    • Method for Choice of Suitable Solvents
    • Reference Soils for Comparison
    • Identification of Designer Solvents
    • An Open Question — Answered
    • Limiting R_A Value For Expected Good Cleaning Performance
    • Application of HSP Methodology to Cleaning Operations
    • Analysis of Capability of Designer Solvents
12. Applications — Chemical Resistance;C.M. Hansen
    • Chemical Resistance — Acceptable-or-Not Data
    • Effects of Solvent Molecular Size
    • Chemical Resistance — Examples
    • Special Effects with Water
13. Applications — Barrier Polymers;C.M. Hansen
    • Concentration-Dependent Diffusion
14. Solubility Parameter Correlations Based on Permeation Phenomena
    • Solubility Parameter Correlation of Polymer Swelling
    • Solubility Parameter Correlation of Permeation Coefficients for Gases
    • General Considerations
15. Applications – Environmental Stress Cracking in Polymers;C.M. Hansen
    • ESC Interpreted Using HSP
    • ESC With Nonabsorbing Stress Cracking Initiators
16. Hansen Solubility Parameters — Biological Materials;C.M. Hansen and T. Svenstrup Poulsen
    • Hydrophobic Bonding and Hydrophilic Bonding (Self-Association)
    • DNA
    • Cholesterol
    • Lard
    • Human Skin
    • Proteins — Blood Serum and Zein
    • Chlorophyll and Lignin
    • Wood Chemicals and Polymers
    • Urea
    • Water
    • Surface Mobility
    • Chiral Rotation, Hydrogen Bonding, and Nanoengineering
17. Absorption and Diffusion in Polymers;C.M. Hansen
    • Steady State Permeation
    • The Diffusion Equation
    • Surface Resistance
    • Side Effects
    • Film Formation by Solvent Evaporation
    • Anomalous Diffusion (Case II, Super Case II)
18. Applications — Safety and Environment;C.M. Hansen
    • Substitution
    • Alternative Systems
    • Solvent Formulation And Personal Protection For Least Risk
    • The Danish Mal System — The Fan
    • Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing
    • Uptake of Contents by a Plastic Container
    • Skin Penetration
    • Transport Phenomena
19. The Future
    • Hansen Solubility Parameter Data and Data Quality
    • Group Contribution Methods
    • Polymers as Points — Solvents as Spheres
    • Characterizing Surfaces
    • Materials and Processes Suggested for Further Attention
    • Theoretical Problems Awaiting Future Resolution
20. Appendices
    • Hansen Solubility Parameters for Selected Solvents with the major contribution of Hanno Priebe
    • Hansen Solubility Parameters for Selected Correlations
    • Solubility Data for the Original 33 Polymers and 88 Solvents
21. Index