DOI: 10.1002/apj.

2386

CORRIGENDUM

Correction to “Estimation of the solubility with cosolvent

composition by combinated of the Williams–Amidon model
with quasi virial coefficient”

Haiyang Wang | Xinwei Zhang

Dalian Research Institute of Petroleum and Petrochemicals, SINOPEC, Dalian, China

The equation coefficient, R2, and rmsd have been RE FER EN CE

recalculated. The updated data were given in Table 1, 1. Wang H, Zhang X. Estimation of the solubility with cosolvent
Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Figure 3, Figure 4, and composition by combinated of the Williams–Amidon model with
Figure 5. quasi virial coefficient. Asia‐Pac J Chem Eng. 2019;e2340. https://
doi.org/10.1002/apj.2340

TABLE 3 Parameters of WA‐QVC model for apigenin22 at dif-

TABLE 1 Accuracy of different cosolvency models for luteolin21
ferent temperatures
at 313.15 K
T/K 273.15 283.15 293.15 303.15 313.15 323.15
Models R2 RMSD
B1 1.82 × 4.10 × 6.81 × 1.41 × 2.07 × 2.96 ×
Log‐linear model 0.913 1.53 × 10−1
10−7 10−7 10−7 10−6 10−6 10−6
Modified Wilson model 0.999 1.70 × 10−2
B2 −5.04 × −1.11 × −1.80 × −3.68 × −5.42 × −7.65 ×
Williams–Amidon model 0.996 3.06 × 10−2 10−7 10−6 10−6 10−6 10−6 10−6
WA‐QVC model 0.999 1.81 × 10−3 B3 3.62 × 7.82 × 1.23 × 2.49 × 3.70 × 5.13 ×
Jouyban–Acree model 0.999 1.84 × 10−3 10−7 10−7 10−6 10−6 10−6 10−6

RMSD, root‐mean‐square deviation. X1 1.90 × 2.20 × 2.70 × 3.20 × 3.70 × 4.40 ×

10−4 10−4 10−4 10−4 10−4 10−4
α 16.704 15.482 14.727 13.633 13.395 13.154
2
R 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
RMSD 4.91 × 4.59 × 3.21 × 4.87 × 4.87 × 3.20 ×
10−6 10−6 10−6 10−6 10−6 10−3

RMSD, root‐mean‐square deviation.

TABLE 2 Parameters of WA‐QVC model for luteolin21 at different temperatures

T/K 273.15 283.15 293.15 303.15 313.15 323.15

−7 −7 −6 −6 −6
B1 4.80 × 10 7.22 × 10 1.70 × 10 3.31 × 10 7.90 × 10 2.00 × 10−5
B2 −1.45 × 10−6 −2.10 × 10−6 −4.84 × 10−6 −9.24 × 10−6 −2.00 × 10−5 −6.00 × 10−5
B3 1.11 × 10−6 1.58 × 10−6 3.55 × 10−6 6.65 × 10−6 2.00 × 10−5 5.00 × 10−5
X1 1.14 × 10−3 1.37 × 10−3 1.88 × 10−3 2.17 × 10−3 2.77 × 10−3 3.23 × 10−3
α 19.47 18.50 16.82 16.01 14.24 12.46
2
R 0.977 0.994 0.997 0.998 0.999 0.999
−4 −5 −5 −3 −3
RMSD 1.70 × 10 9.47 × 10 7.32 × 10 1.81 × 10 1.81 × 10 4.93 × 10−4

RMSD, root‐mean‐square deviation.

Asia‐Pac J Chem Eng. 2020;15:e2386. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apj © 2019 Curtin University and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 3
https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2386
2 of 3 CORRIGENDUM

TABLE 4 Regression results of B1, B2, B3, X1, and α versus temperature for luteolin21 and apigenin22

Luteolin Apigenin
a b c R2
a b c R2
B1~T (Equation 10) −117.080 −2128.791 19.525 0.997 −134.017 2080.338 19.878 0.984
X1~T (Equation 11) 30.193 −3225.020 −4.490 0.995 −44.508 338.965 6.183 0.999
B2~T (Equation 12) −1.55 × 109
8.30 × 10 4
− 0.994 −3.332 3.48 × 10 4
− 0.990
B3~T (Equation 12) 1.55 × 108 7.73 × 104 − 0.998 1.792 3.42 × 104 − 0.990
α~T (Equation 13) −11.513 0.327 −0.001 0.994 146.253 −0.814 0.001 0.992

TABLE 5 Accuracy of WA‐QVC model for different solutes

No. Systems R2 RMSD

1 Theobromine + dioxane + water 0.998 1.51 × 10−5
2 chlordiazepoxide + ethanol + water 0.999 6.20 × 10−5
3 Lorazepam + ethanol + water 0.999 3.46 × 10−5
4 Diazepam + ethanol + water 0.999 5.45 × 10−5
5 Tadalafil + ethanol + water 0.999 8.68 × 10−4
6 Betulin + chloroform + methanol 1.000 6.24 × 10−5
7 pioglitazone hydrochloride + acetone + methanol 0.999 2.75 × 10−4
8 Acetaminophen + polyethylene glycol 600 + water 0.998 0.026
9 candesartan cilexetil + acetone + water 1.000 2.50 × 10−3
10 oxolinic acid + ethanol + water 0.994 0.977
11 Paracetamol + propylene glycol + water 0.996 0.217
12 sodium naproxen + methanol + water 0.994 8.47 × 10−5
13 procaine hydrochloride + methanol + water 0.999 6.60 × 10−5
14 lysine clonixinate + methanol + water 0.995 1.09 × 10−4

RMSD, root‐mean‐square deviation.

CORRIGENDUM 3 of 3

FIGURE 3 The relationship of B1 and X1 versus temperature for luteolin21 and apigenin22

FIGURE 4 The relationship of B2 and B3 versus temperature for luteolin21 and apigenin22

FIGURE 5 The relationship of α versus temperature for luteolin21 and apigenin22