Accurate thermodynamic property correlations are crucial for the modeling and performance analysis of absorption refrigeration systems. For the ammonia/lithium nitrate (LiNO3/NH3) working pair (a promising fluid for sustainable cooling) several correlations have been proposed in the literature. This study presents a comparative assessment of existing correlations for LiNO3/NH3 across five key thermodynamic properties (vapor-liquid equilibrium, density, dynamic viscosity, specific heat capacity and enthalpy) and, for enthalpy specifically, by quantifying through a dedicated case study and sensitivity analysis how the resulting discrepancies propagate to the performance predictions of a single-effect absorption cycle. For equilibrium pressure, significant discrepancies are identified at low ammonia mass fractions (x ≈ 0.3), where predictions can vary by 20–50%. Density and specific heat capacity correlations show good agreement with experimental data (<6% deviation), whereas a significant divergence (>90% in some cases) is found for dynamic viscosity, raising concerns about the reliability of available models. The impact of selecting different solution enthalpy correlations on cycle performance was evaluated through a case study, revealing excellent agreement between all these correlations, with overall robust Coefficient of Performance (COP) and main heat exchanger duties (deviations < 2%). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis shows that the thermal power in the absorber and desorber is driven primarily by the refrigerant’s enthalpy flow (79–97%), with the solution’s enthalpy flow playing a significantly smaller role. This work underscores the importance of carefully selecting property correlations and provides practical guidance to improve the accuracy and reliability of simulations for LiNO3/NH3 absorption systems. To prevent implementation errors, we recommend that future correlation studies include brief validation tables with sample calculations to verify unit consistency and sign conventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seck et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: