CRITICAL JOURNAL REVIEW

(JUDUL JURNAL)
Disusun untuk memenuhi tugas
Mata Kuliah ..........................
Dosen Pengampu : ........................................

Oleh:
Nama : .............................
Kelas : ......................................
Mata Kuliah : ........................

PROGRAM STUDI .........................................................

JURUSAN ..............

FAKULTAS .......................................................................................................

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MEDAN

MEDAN

2018/2019
 PREFACE

Thanks to Almaighty God Allah swt for giving me healt and opportunity.
So this particular task is done in time. In this task I explain the adventages and the
disadventages of the journal that I review. In this paper I also describe the
summary of the two journal that I review.
 CHAPTER I

SUMMARY

Journal 1

Identity of journal

1. Title : Mutual solubilities of Hydrocarbons and water at 0 and

25oC

2. Year : 1973
3. Author : JIRI POLAK AND BENJAMIN C.-Y. LU
4. Vol/page : 41/4018-4023

Summary of journal

Mutual solubilities of 14 paraffinic and 6 aromatic hydrocarbons and water

were determined experi- mentally at 0 and 25oC. The solubilities are generally
smaller at 0 than at 25oC except the solubilities of paraffins in water which are
larger at 0 than at 25oC. The coefficients of the Redlich-Kister equation were
evaluated from the experimental data and correlated as a function of molar
volume of liquid hydrocarbons and group contributions. The correlation
allows calculation of the mutual solubilities of paraffinic and aromatic
hydrocarbons and water at 0 and 25 oC from the knowledge of the molar
volume of liquid and the contribution of their component groups.'

The experimentally determined solubilities are listed in Table 1 along with

some experimental values available in the literature for 25oC. Hard- ly any
definitive conclusions can be drawn from this comparison. The experimental
data reported from different sources are usually quite different, with the
discrepancy in values being much larger than the quoted precision. For the
solubilities of hydrocarbons in water, for example, for n-hexane, which is only
slightly soluble, the three most recently reported values (1-3) vary from 9.5-
18.3 p.p.m. Probably be- cause of the magnitude of their solubilities, the
agreement for aromatics is generally better. The results from this investigation
 for paraffinic hy- drocarbons are in most cases larger than those obtained by
McAuliffe (2). For the solubilities of water in hydrocarbons the values
obtained in this investigation are generally lower than those pub- lished for
parafins and close to the values listed for aromatics. In the literature, most of
the solubility data are reported at 25oC. Little is known about the tem- perature
dependence of the solubility of hydro- carbons in water. The work of Nelson
and de Ligny (3) partially confirms our findings of higher solubilities of
paraffins in water at 0 "C than at 25oC. Their experimentally determined
values indicated an increase in the solubility with a de- crease in temperature
for n-pentane from 25 to 4oC and for n-octane from 25 to 5 oC. On the other
hand, their results for n-hexane and n- heptane indicated a decrease in the
solubility from 25 to about 4oC. Although in some cases, such as n-hexane, the
change of solubility with temperature is within experimental error, in other
cases, such as heptane and octane, the difference seems to be definite. The
available data in the literature on the solu- bility of water in hydrocarbons
show a decline with a decrease in temperature (4-6) which is in agreement
with the findings of this investigation.

Journal 2

Identity of journal

1. Title : Temperature, Stability, and the Hydrophobic Interaction

2. Year :1997
3. Author : John A. Scheilman
4. Vol/page : 2960-2964
5. Type : Biophysical Journal
6. ISBN : 0022-0728(93)03008-D

Summary of journal
 Changes in free energy are normally used to track the effect of temperature
on the stability of proteins and hydrophobic interactions. Use of this procedure on
the aqueous solubility of hydrocarbons, a standard representation of the
hydrophobic effect, leads to the conclusion that the hydrophobic effect increases
in strength as the temperature is raised to - 140°C. Acceptance of this
interpretation leads to a number of far-reaching conclusions that are at variance
with the original conception of the hydrophobic effect and add considerably to the
complexity of interpretation. There are two legitimate thermodynamic functions
that can be used to look at stability as a function of temperature: the standard
Gibbs free energy change, ΔG0, and ΔG0/T. The latter is proportional to the log of
the equilibrium constant and is sometimes called the Massieu-Planck function.
Arguments are presented for using ΔG0/Trather than ΔG0 for variations in stability
with temperature. This makes a considerable difference in the interpretation of the
hydrophobic interaction, but makes little change in the stability profile of proteins.
Protein unfolding and the aqueous solubility of benzene are given as examples.
The contrast between protein unfolding and the hydration of nonpolar molecules
provides a rough estimate of the contribution of other factors that stabilize and
destabilize protein structure

CHAPTER III
 DISCUSSION

The Adventages

1. Journal 1

2. Journal 2

The disadvantages

1. Journal 1

2. Journal 2