INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND BIO-SCIENCE STUDY OF ION SOLVENT INTERACTION OF GLUCOSE IN WATER-METHANOL AND ETHANOL- ULTRASONICALLY VERMA RC 1, SINGH AP 1, GUPTA J 2, GUPTA R 2 1. Department of Chemistry, Janta P.G. College Bakewar, Etawah. 2. Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, GLA University, Post-Chaumuha, Mathura, Utter Pradesh, India. Accepted Date: 24/04/2014; Published Date: 27/06/2014 Abstract: Ultrasonic velocity, density and viscosity in binary liquid mixtures of Glucose in water, methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. Density, viscosity and ultrasound velocity have been determined at 0 0 C over the entire composition range. By measuring above parameters isentropic compressibility ( s ), Intermolecular free length (L f ), apparent molar compressibility ( k ) and Specific viscosity ( sp ) have been computed. The isentropic compressibility of binary mixture exhibits negative deviation while density, viscosity and ultrasound velocity exhibit positive deviations from ideal behavior over the entire molar concentration. Keywords: Isentropic Compressibility, Apparent Molar Compressibility Ultrasound Velocity Corresponding Author: MR. RAJESH CHANDRA VERMA Access Online On: www.ijprbs.com PAPER-QR CODE How to Cite This Article: Verma RC, Singh AP, Gupta J, Gupta R;, 2014; Volume 3(3): 66-72 66
INTRODUCTION Ultrasound is the part of science of acoustics which is concerned with phenomenon of frequencies above the upper audible limit ultrasound propagation parameters yields valuable information regarding the behaviour of liquid binary system because the intermolecular association dipolar effect the compressibility of the system which is turn produces corresponding variation in the compressibility of the system which is turn produces corresponding variation in the ultrasound velocity; Padamsree and Prasad 1 investigated the molecular interaction based on all excess thermodynamic parameters such as volumes, viscosities and internal pressure, adiabatic compressibility, free length and enthalpy in the binary mixture of n-butane and ethyl acetate at 30 0 C. Rajendran 2 studied ultrasound velocity, density and viscosity in the binary mixture if n-heptanes with n-propanol, iso-opropanol, isoopropanol, n and iso-butanol over the entire of mole fractions at a constant temperature of 298.15K. Verma and coworkers 3-4 investigated the molecular interaction in Eusol in Di ethyl ether and acetaldehyde, hexanol-1 with toluene and benzene. Ramesh et.al 5 studied the regent benzyl hydrazine has been used for the spectrophotometer of lead in water samples. Angelo et.al 6 studied the ultrasound velocity of alkali halogen salt in method and suggested that compressibility lowering depended on the anion irrespective of caution. The present investigation deals with study of the excess isentropic compressibility ( S ), intermolecular free length (L f ), apparent molal adiabatic ( k ) and specific viscosity ( sp ) for binary mixture of glucose in ethyl alcohol at 30 C. These systems are typical binary mixtures with wide scope for complication through hydrogen bonding. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Glucose was purchased from Chemical Drug House (CDH) New Delhi. All reagents were used of analytic al Grade. EXPERIMENTAL DETAIL: All the liquids used in the present study have been distilled of remove impurities by standard procedures. The purity of each sample was checked by comparing the measured densities of compounds with those reported in the measured densities of compounds with those reported in the literature 7. Ultrasound velocities were measured using single crystal ultrasound interferometer of 2 MHz frequency and data were accurate up to 0.2% densities of the mixture have been determined by using specific gravity bottle and electronic balance. The viscosities have been determined by using Ostwald viscometer. The temperature was maintained by circulating water around liquid melt from a thermostat controlled at 30 C. The value of isentropic compressibility ( S ) was calculated by using the relation: 67
S= 1/(v 2 ) Intermolecular free length (L f ) has been calculated by using the formula: L f= K S Where, K is Jacobson constant. Apparent molal adiabatic compressibility ( k ) has been calculated by using the formula: k= 1000 ( o s- so) + s/ Cpo o * m Where, m is the molecular weight of solute. C is the Concentration in mole per later of solute. Specific ( sp ) has been calculated by using the formula: RESULT & DISCUSSION: The value of ultrasound velocity (V) density ( ), viscosity ( ), isentropic compressibility ( s ), intermolecular free length (L f ) apparent molal adiabatic compressibility ( k ) and specific viscosity ( sp ) are represented in tables (1-3). The concentration curves are also plotted in fig (1-6).Molecular concentration of glucose, density, ultrasound velocity viscosity, isentropic compressibility, intermolecular free length, apparent adiabatic molal compressibility and specific viscosity for the binary mixture at 30 C. By the study of above tables & figures we conclude that ultrasound velocity increase with increasing molecular concentration of solution. Density and viscosity are also increases on increasing molecular concentration of solution. It is ambitious that the moles of glucose are so dense that their density is more in compare to solvent. The result show that density increases while the isentropic compressibility decreases with increasing concentration and so the quantity dv/dc is positive while d s / e is negative. The result reported for electrolytic solution 8 which shown that Glucose behaves as simple electrolytic. The variation intermolecular free length with molar concentration of glucose in water, methanol & ethanol is shown in fig. 1 & 2 at 30 C. It decreases with increasing molar 68
concentration and the slope of lines is found to be negative. Linear decrease of L f has also been reported for oxalic acid dehydrates in tetra hydro furan by Ravi Chandran et. al 9. The variation of k with molar concentration of solutions at 30 0 C in fig. 3, 4 & 5. Molal compressibility varies linearly with the molar concentration slope of line is found to be positive in each solution fig. 6 shows the variation of sp with molar concentration. The slope of lines is found to be positive in each solution. Table 1. Ultrasound velocity (V), Density ( ), Viscosity ( ), Isentropic compressibility ( s ), Intermolecular free length (L f ), apparent molar compressibility ( k ) and Specific viscosity ( sp ) value of different molecular Concentration of binary mixture (Glucose and Water) Table 2. Ultrasound velocity (V), Density ( ), Viscosity ( ), Isentropic compressibility ( s ), Intermolecular free length (L f ), apparent molar compressibility ( k ) and Specific viscosity ( sp ) value of different molecular Concentration of binary mixture (Glucose and Methanol) 69
Table 3. Ultrasound velocity (V), Density ( ), Viscosity ( ), Isentropic compressibility ( s ), Intermolecular free length (L f ), apparent molar compressibility ( k ) and Specific viscosity ( sp ) value of different molecular Concentration of binary mixture (Glucose and Ethanol) Figure 1. Molecular Concentration Vs Intermolecular Free Length of binary mixture (L f ) A (Glucose + Methanol, Glucose + Ethanol) Figure 2. Molecular Concentration Vs Intermolecular Free Length of binary mixture (L f ) A (Glucose + Ethanol) 70
Figure 3. Molecular Concentration Vs Molal Adiabatic compressibility ( k ) (Glucose + Water) Figure 4. Molecular Concentration Vs Molal Adiabatic compressibility ( k ) (Glucose + Methanol) Figure 5. Molecular Concentration Vs Molal Adiabatic compressibility ( k ) (Glucose + Ethanol) 71
Figure 6. Molecular Concentration Vs Specific viscosity ( sp ) (Glucose + Ethanol, Glucose + Ethanol, Glucose + Methanol) REFERENCE 1. Pasamsree & Prasad, KR: Ind. J. Pure & Appl. Phys. 1995; 33. 2. Rajendra, V: Ind.J.Pure& Appl.Phys. 1996;34: 52-56. 3. Verma, R.C., Raghav S., Chauhan N., Rauki, & Singh, AP: Res. J. Recent Sci. 2012; 2 and 2013;1-06. 4. Verma, RC and Singh, S: Ori. J. of Cham. 2006; 22(3):671-673. 5. Ramesh, M, Chandra Sekhar, KB & Hussain Raddy, K: Ind. J. Chem. 2000; 39A:1337-1339. 6. Angelo, D, Sachiera, S & Jacobson, B: Soc. Ind. Prog. Sci. (SPIS) Tech. 1961; 3-4:161. 7. Jacobson, B. Acta Chem. Scand. 1952; 6:1485.. 8. Prakash, S & Chaturvedi, CV Ind. J. Chem. 1972;10: 669. 9. Ravichandran, G, Srinivas Rao, A & Nambinarayana, TK: Ind. J. Pure & Appl. Phys. 1994; 32: 59-51. 72