1

Abstract
Methanol-to-olefins (MTO) conversion is one of the most important reactions in C1 chemistry,
which provides a path for producing basic petrochemicals from nonpetroleum resources such as
coal and natural gas. Since the 1970s, the processes of methanol conversion to olefins have been
developed, and with the great research efforts in the past 30 years, commercialization of MTO
process has been achieved in 2010.The methanol-to-olefins (MTO) reaction is an interesting and
important reaction for both fundamental research and industrial application. During last decades,
many efforts have been devoted to the replacement of fossil fuels. Keeping this in mind, a new
concept called “methanol economy” was introduced by Nobel laureate G. Olah. The methanol
became a valuable alternative to fossil energies. Hence, the methanol to hydrocarbons (MTH)
and likewise the methanol to olefins (MTO) processes were developed for the production of key
raw chemicals and gasoline. This review article summarizes the different strategies followed for
the development of an efficient MTO catalyst. A deeper focus to the design of MTP catalyst
(methanol to propylene) was made.

Introduction
Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol amongst other names, is a chemical with
the formula CH3OH (a methyl group linked to a hydroxyl group, often abbreviated MeOH). It is
a light, volatile, colourless, flammable liquid with a distinctive alcoholic odour similar to that
of ethanol. A polar solvent, methanol acquired the name wood alcohol because it was once
produced chiefly by the destructive distillation of wood. Today, methanol is mainly produced
industrially by hydrogenation of carbon monoxide.

Olefin, also called alkene, compound made up of hydrogen and carbon that contains one or

more pairs of carbon atoms linked by a double bond. Olefins are examples of
unsaturated hydrocarbons (compounds that contain only hydrogen and carbon and at least one
double or triple bond). They are classified in either or both of the following ways: (1) as cyclic or
acyclic (aliphatic) olefins, in which the double bond is located between carbon atoms forming
part of a cyclic (closed-ring) or of an open-chain grouping, respectively, and (2) as monoolefins,
diolefins, triolefins, etc., in which the number of double bonds per molecule is, respectively, one,
two, three, or some other number.

The methanol-to-gasoline process (MTG, as introduced first by Mobil researchers’, in 1977), and
its companion, methanol-to-olefins (MTO, as introduced first by Union Carbide, in 1981) are 2
seminal and indeed epochal technological breakthroughs in synfuels research, some 50 years
after the Fischer–Tropsch process. Initially developed in the United States in response to the
energy crisis of the 1970s (oil embargo with the accompanying gasoline price volatility and
uncertain supply chain), these 2 technological wonders are now viewed upon as a “synfuels
factory”, ready to put in place as technological and economic demands warrant. The genesis and
evolution of the methanol-to-hydrocarbons (MTH) technology, from its discovery up until
successful commercial implementation/practice, has also provided a rich tableau for scientific
research and pursuits, filled with research controversies/challenges and advances.
 2

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MTO

The MTO research in DICP began in 1982 as a project supported by Chinese government and
Chinese Academy of Sciences due to the concerns about the shortage of oil supply because of the
oil crisis in the late 1970s. Two research groups were involved in the early researches, and one
was in charge of zeolite synthesis and the other focused on zeolite modification and catalyst
development. Based on ZSM-5 type catalyst, with participation of third research group, DICP
finished a 300 t/a MTO fixed bed pilot plant test in 1993. In the meantime, following the
findings of excellent MTO performance over small pore molecular sieves such as SAPOs and the
idea that synthesis of dimethyl ether is more favorable in thermodynamics than that of methanol,
we proposed a syngas via dimethyl-ether-to-olefins (SDTO) method in early 1990s.(22) In this
process, the modified SAPO-34 catalyst was used to convert dimethyl ether to light olefins in a
fluidized bed reactor. A pilot scale test on SDTO was finished in 1995. The SDTO results
indicated that they met the expectation; however, it was still less economically competitive
compared to the oil route at the time of low oil price. The MTO research in DICP then focused
on molecular sieve synthesis and modifications in order to further improve the catalyst
performance, which led to the development of DMTO technology.

In 2004, the DICP had a chance to demonstrate the MTO process at a large scale by
collaborating with SYN Energy Technology Corporation and SINOPEC Luoyang Petrochemical
Engineering Corporation. The latter is a well-known engineering company in China. DICP spent
two years in scaling up the catalyst manufacturing and constructing a demonstration unit with a
methanol feed rate of 16 kt/a.The successful running of the demonstration unit not only provided
the basic design data for the commercial units design but also encouraged the rapid industrial
applications of DMTO technology in China. Up to now, seven DMTO units have been
commissioned and put into stream.

Overview of MTO Process

The Methanol to Hydrocarbons process was discovered at Mobil Oil in 1977. This process is
used to convert methanol to products such as olefins and gasoline. The methanol can first be
obtained from coal or natural gas. In the Methanol to Olefins (MTO) process, the methanol is
then converted to olefins such as ethylene and propylene. The olefins can be reacted to
produce polyolefins, which are used to make many plastic materials.

Overview of MTO Mechanism

The conversion of methanol to olefins on acidic zeolites takes place through a complex network
of chemical reactions. The distribution of products and thus the “selectivity” depends on the
temperature, among other factors. Selectivity is a measure of the amount of one product
produced relative to others when the possibility to form multiple products exists. Selectivity
depends on temperature through the Arrhenius law for the different rate constants.In general, at
lower temperatures methanol reacts to form dimethyl ether (DME). At higher temperatures, the
 3

desired products (olefins) are produced and the selectivity for DME decreases. Typical percent
yields at steady state for methanol conversion on the zeolite H-SAPO-34 are shown below.
“Steady-state” refers to a process in which the properties, such as temperature or concentrations,
are not changing with time. The percent conversion of methanol is denoted by Xme and the Y
terms represent percent yields. The subscript dme refers to dimethyl ether. The subscripts C2=,
C3=, C4= and C4 refer to ethylene, propylene, butylenes, and butane, respectively. Based on the
yield curves, the temperature at which the olefin products are first observed is near 523 K for H-
SAPO-34.

MTO Catalysts
Medium-pore zeolites (ZSM-5)

- Major olefin product is Propylene

- Significant C5+/aromatics by-products

- Slow deactivation

• Small-pore molecular sieves (SAPO-34)

- Major olefin products are Ethylene and Propylene

- Fast deactivation by aromatic coke

- SAPO molecular sieves more stable than corresponding zeolite structure.

Problem Statement
The development the methanol-to-hydrocarbons reaction, and, in particular, the methanol-to-
gasoline (MTG) process was a fortuitous yet adventitious discovery by Mobil Oil Corporation
(now ExxonMobil). Two research groups, one at Mobil Corporate Research (Edison, NJ) and the
other at Mobil Central Research Laboratories (Princeton, NJ), were independently working on 2
unrelated reactions, methanol to ethylene oxide, and the reaction with methanol with isobutylene
to form neopentane (an aliphatic hydrocarbon, C5+), respectively. While the methylation of
isobutylene did not proceed according to their reaction hypothesis, the second group working at
Mobil’s Central Research Labs discovered that the conversion of methanol was complete and
quantitative, over the ZSM-5 catalyst used. The overall reaction stoichiometry could be
represented by the following reaction:

The conversion of methanol is essentially complete and stoichiometric, and the product
selectivity is 56% (w/w) towards hydrocarbons (HCs) and 44% to H 2O. It is interesting to note
here that [CH2] is the average oligomeric branch of an olefin hydrocarbon, and consistent with
the reaction model proposed for the MTG process (Figure 1), as stated above, an interruption of
the methanol-to-hydrocarbons reaction, by careful control over process conditions (T, space
 4

velocity), led to the now-common methanol-to-olefins process (MTO). As can been seen from
the reaction scheme and experimental reaction surveys, and as stated above, an interruption of
the reaction leads to production of primarily light olefins instead of gasoline. This is the then so-
called and now hugely successful MTO process. 

Literature Review
Methanol conversion to olefins, as an important reaction in C1 chemistry,
provides an alternative platform for producing basic chemicals from non-
petroleum resources such as natural gas and coal. Methanol-to-olefin
(MTO) catalysis is one of the critical constraints for the process develop-
ment, determining the reactor design, and the profitability of the process.
After the construction and commissioning of the world’s first MTO plant by
Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, based on high-efficiency catalyst and
fluidization technology in 2010, more attention has been attracted for a deep
understanding of the reaction mechanism and catalysis principle, which has
led to the continuous development of catalysts and processes. Herein, the
recent progress in MTO catalyst development is summarized, focusing on the
advances in the optimization of SAPO-34 catalysts, together with the develop-
ment efforts on catalysts with preferential ethylene or propylene selectivity.
Methanol conversion to olefins, as an important reaction in C1 chemistry,
provides an alternative platform for producing basic chemicals from non-
petroleum resources such as natural gas and coal. Methanol-to-olefin
(MTO) catalysis is one of the critical constraints for the process develop-
ment, determining the reactor design, and the profitability of the process.
After the construction and commissioning of the world’s first MTO plant by
Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, based on high-efficiency catalyst and
fluidization technology in 2010, more attention has been attracted for a deep
understanding of the reaction mechanism and catalysis principle, which has
led to the continuous development of catalysts and processes. Herein, the
recent progress in MTO catalyst development is summarized, focusing on the
advances in the optimization of SAPO-34 catalysts, together with the develop-
ment efforts on catalysts with preferential ethylene or propylene selectivity.
Methanol conversion to olefins, as an important reaction in C1 chemistry,
provides an alternative platform for producing basic chemicals from non-
petroleum resources such as natural gas and coal. Methanol-to-olefin
(MTO) catalysis is one of the critical constraints for the process develop-
ment, determining the reactor design, and the profitability of the process.
After the construction and commissioning of the world’s first MTO plant by
Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, based on high-efficiency catalyst and
fluidization technology in 2010, more attention has been attracted for a deep
understanding of the reaction mechanism and catalysis principle, which has
led to the continuous development of catalysts and processes. Herein, the
recent progress in MTO catalyst development is summarized, focusing on the
advances in the optimization of SAPO-34 catalysts, together with the develop-
ment efforts on catalysts with preferential ethylene or propylene selectivity.
Methanol conversion to olefins, as an important reaction in C1 chemistry,
provides an alternative platform for producing basic chemicals from non-
petroleum resources such as natural gas and coal. Methanol-to-olefin
 5

(MTO) catalysis is one of the critical constraints for the process develop-
ment, determining the reactor design, and the profitability of the process.
After the construction and commissioning of the world’s first MTO plant by
Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, based on high-efficiency catalyst and
fluidization technology in 2010, more attention has been attracted for a deep
understanding of the reaction mechanism and catalysis principle, which has
led to the continuous development of catalysts and processes. Herein, the
recent progress in MTO catalyst development is summarized, focusing on the
advances in the optimization of SAPO-34 catalysts, together with the develop-
ment efforts on catalysts with preferential ethylene or propylene selectivity
Many studies have interested methanol to olefins reactions together with the mechanism of the
initial C-C formation and the kinetic considerations in methanol to hydrocarbons chemistry.
They are important and fundamental steps to develop efficient catalyst. Generally, the reaction
contains three stages firstly, dimethyl ether formation from methanol dehydration, secondly, the
intermediate formation of olefins and finally the bond chain polymerization of olefins and
isomerization. (Tajima et al., 1998) The detail reaction path can be seen in the following Figure

The mechanism for C-C formation was proposed by many studies: Vanden et al., (1980) and
Stöcker, (1999) reported Oxonium ylide mechanism. Dimethyl oxonium ion was produced when
dimethyl ether contacted with Brönsted acid site of catalyst and then changed into trimethyl
oxonium ion upon further reaction with dimethyl ether. The surface associated dimethyl
oxonium methyl ylide species were created by deprotonating of trimethyl oxonium ion. The
ethyldimethyl oxonium ion was formed by intramolecular Stevens’s rearrangement or
intermolecular methylation and then ethylene is produced. The scheme adopted from Stöcker,
1999 was shown in Figure.
 6

Olah et al., (1984) studied olefins formation over bifunctional acid-base catalyst and suggested
that ethylene was found as a primary product and upon further reaction by alkylation, higher
alkenes and alkanes were formed. The carbene mechanism explained that the C-C bond is
appeared via methylene (CH2) production. Chang and Silvestri (1977) reported that methylene
was reacted with methanol or dimethyl ether through a carbenoid species of active sites and then
produced ethanol or methyl ethyl ether. Carbenes can be formed by decomposition of surface
methoxyls which was produced on chemisorptions of methanol on the zeolite. (Stöcker, 1999).In
1998, Tajima and coworkers suggested a new mechanism for the first C-C bond formation via
the reaction of methane and formaldehyde. Methane and formaldehyde were formed when
surface methoxyl group (CH3 + ) received H+ from the methanol. Then C-C bond can be
produced rapidly from methane and formaldehyde reaction through by ethanol because of the
difference of energy barriers between formations. ZSM-5 was a major catalyst which was mostly
used in methanol to hydrocarbon (MTH) mechanistic research.Broadly, there were two main
proposed mechanisms in MTO conversion reaction. The consecutive type mechanism: ethylene
was the primary olefin over methanol decomposition. Then, further alkylation reaction by
methanol on primary olefins produced propylene, butylenes, etc. Thus, the consecutive
mechanism can be seen as follow:

2C1→C2H4+H2O

C2H4+C1→C3H6

C3H6+C1→C4H8

The hydrocarbon pool mechanism: The olefins were produced through hydrocarbon pool
(CH2)n, possibly a carbonium ion. This ion was transferred to olefins over further addition
reaction of methanol or dimethyl ether (Liu and Liang, 1999) .
 7

But in some reports, ethylene, the first C-C bond formed in the MTO reaction can be produced
by two different ways. Hagg et al. (1982) studied the olefins distribution from methanol with
zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst. It was assumed that the olefins were formed through dehydration,
alkylation and isomerization reactions of methanol while Tajima et al. (1998) investigation
showed ethanol was an intermediate. The reactions of methanol on both SAPO-34 and ZSM-5
catalysts were studied by Iglesia et al. (1998). It was shown that shape selective effects,
diffusional constraints and acid sites overwhelmed the product formations. Alkene selectivity
was not occurred on medium pores, zeolites, (0.51-0.56) ˚A as the kinetic diameters of linear
alkenes are smaller than pore channels. Thus, higher catalyst stability can be seen on medium
pores. SAPO-34 which has similar size with linear olefins and its intermediate transport
restrictions can give optimum ethylene selectivity but has higher diffusion path length.

Methanol to Olefins catalysts

Process Application
Currently, there are three types of commercial developments in methanol to olefins production;
namely MTO process by Mobil Oil, MTO process by UOP/ Hydro and Methanol to propylene
(MTP) by Lurgi’s process. During 1980-90s, Mobil introduced MTO process based on the
catalyst ZSM-5 zeolites which showed high activity in methanol conversion reactions like in
MTG. The proposed target by Mobile group was light olefins production mainly ethylene and
propylene. The proposed reactor was a fluidized bed type because of its better temperature
control and heat transfer effects. One of the primarily olefins producers, Tabak and Yurchak
(1990) research, olefins were produced on the catalyst ZSM-5 at 482 ˚C and methanol partial
pressure of 1.02 bar in a fluidized bed. A yield of 56.4% C2-C4 selectivity was occurred
 8

including mainly propylene. In addition to olefins, 35.7% of C5+ gasoline was produced but less
light paraffin formation was occurred. The individual olefin yield can be varied by process
parameters. Process developments were conducted in Mobil laboratories and tested in pilot scale.
According to Mokrani and Scurrell (2009) review, the capacity of 100 bbl/ day demonstration
plant was built at Wesseling, Germany. The maximum olefins yield of more than 60% and 36%
of gasoline were achieved at operating conditions of (2.2-3.5) bar and about 500 ˚C. Discovery
of SAPO-34 from Union Carbide Group created a new industrial process in olefins synthesis.
SAPOs with high selectivity to olefins particularly, SAPO-34, was used in new MTO process.
This process was proposed by American company UOP and Norsk Hydro ASA (Oslo, Norway).
It included three main steps, syngas formation from steam reforming of natural gas, methanol
synthesis from syngas and finally olefins production. UOP process was also based on fluidized
bed reactor containing SAPO-34 catalysts. In addition, a carbon-burn regeneration unit was
integrated in fluidized bed to control steady state operation. Barger et al., (2002), reported that
light olefins mainly C2-C3 yield can be achieved up to 80% at nearly 100% conversion. The
activity of catalyst can be maintained up to 90 days operation in fluidized bed reactor at the
Norsk Research center. The ethylene to propylene product ratio can be varied between 0.75 and
1.5 by adjusting the reaction parameters. Large scale units through UOP technology were built in
Nigeria (250,000 ton olefins per year) and China (600,000 ton per year). (Khadzhiev, 2008) On
the other hand, there was a limitation which was high coke formation in catalysts that lead to
rapid deactivation. Many researches to UOP process development have been studied. The overall
UOP process design can be seen in the following Figure

Lurgi developed Mobil process and also became a successful process especially, propylene
synthesis. It included four steps: the first two steps were same with the previous but the latter
steps were dehydration of methanol to dimethyl ether and olefins synthesis from dimethyl ether
mainly propylene. Lurgi’s process can get nearly 70% propylene selectivity from DME by using
ZSM-5 catalyst. Lurgi used fixed bed reactor in olefin synthesis reaction from DME. So, high
heat formation from exothermic reaction of methanol dehydration can be avoided by fixing
methanol to dimethyl ether process as a separate condition. The commercial project with olefin
yield of nearly 100,000 ton per year based on Lurgi’s process has been constructed in Iran. The
following Figure 2.8 is a proposed scheme by Lurgi (Mokrani and Scurrell, 2009).
 9

Properties

Methanol Physical Chemical ThermoPhysical Properties

 10

Melting Point : -97.7 0C

Boiling Point : 65 0C

Relative Density : 0.79

Formula: CH3OH

Molecular weight: 32.042 kg/kmol

Heat of Formation -201.3 MJ/kmol

Gibbs Free Energy -162.62 MJ/kmol

Freezing point: -97.7 °C

Boiling point: 64.6 °C (at atmospheric pressure)

Critical properties:

Critical temperature 512.6 K

Critical pressure 81 bar abs

Critical volume 0.118 m³/kmol

Liquid Properties:

Density 791 kg/m³ at 20 °C

Heat of Vaporization 35278 kJ/kmol

Viscosity:

a = 555.3 b = 260.6

where log(viscosity) = a * ( 1/T - 1/b )

viscosity: mNs/m² T: °K

Vapor Properties:

Heat capacity:

a = 21.152 b = 0.07092 c = 2.59E-05 d = -2.85E-08

where Cp = a + b*T + c*T² + d*T³

Cp: kJ/kmol.K T: °K
 11

Vapour pressure:

a = 18.5875 b = 3626.55 c = -34.29

where ln(P) = a - b/(T+c) P: mmHg; T: °K

within range -16 to 91°C

Property Value

Molecular Weight 32.04

Molar Mass 32.042 g/mol

Density 0.791 g/mL at 25 ºC

Boiling Point 64.7 ºC

Melting Point -98ºC

Flash Point 11.1ºC

Viscosity (cP) 0.544 at 25ºC

Dielectric Constant 33.00 at 20ºC

Dipole Moment 1.7

UV cutoff 210 nm

Refractive Index 1.329 at 20ºC

Vapor Density 1.11 (vs. air)

Exact Mass 32.026215 g/mol

Monoisotopic Mass 32.026215 g/mol

Property Value Unit Value Unit Value Unit Value Unit

Acidity (pKa1) 15.3
 12

Autoignition
737 K 464 °C 867 °F
temperature

Boiling Point 337.85 K 64.7 °C 148.5 °F

Critical density 8.7852 mol/dm3 281 kg/m3 0.546 slug/ft3 17.6 lb/ft3

MPa=MN/ psi=lbf
Critical Pressure 8.22 82.2 bar 81.1 atm 1192
m2 /in2

Critical
513.4 K 240.2 °C 464.4 °F
temperature

0.0035524 0.0569 3
Critical Volume 114 cm3/mol m3/kg 1.831 ft3/slug ft /lb
56 0

Density (gas) at 0.0004
6.87 mol/m3 0.220 kg/m3 slug/ft3 0.0137 lb/ft3
0.17 bar 3

Density (liquid) 24540 mol/m3 786.3 kg/m3 1.526 slug/ft3 49.09 lb/ft3

Flammable, gas
yes
and liquid

Flash point 284 K 11 °C 52 °F

[ft [ft
Gas constant, Wh/(kg
259.5 J/kg K 0.07208 1552 lbf/slug 48.23 lbf/lb
individual - R K)
°R] °R]

Gibbs free
energy of -163 kJ/mol -5087 kJ/kg -2187 Btu/lb
formation (gas)

Heat (enthalpy)
of combustion 726.1 kJ/mol 22661 kJ/kg 9.7 Btu/lb
(gas)

Heat (enthalpy) -727 kJ/mol -22689 kJ/kg -9.8 Btu/lb

of
combustion (liqui
d)
 13

Heat (enthalpy)
of -205 kJ/mol -6398 kJ/kg -2751 Btu/lb
formation (gas)

Heat (enthalpy)
of formation -239 kJ/mol -7459 kJ/kg -3207 Btu/lb
(liquid)

Heat (enthalpy)
of fusion at - 3.18 kJ/mol 99 kJ/kg 42.67 Btu/lb
143°F/-97°C

Heat (enthalpy)
37.34 kJ/mol 1165 kJ/kg 501.01 Btu/lb
of evaporation

Specific heat Btu/lb°F

kJ/kg
capacity, Cp 116 J/mol K 3.62 0.865 or cal/g
K
(gas) at 0.17 bar K

Specific heat Btu/lb°F

kJ/kg
capacity, Cp 81.2 J/mol K 2.53 0.605 or cal/g
K
(liquid) K

Specific heat
Btu/lb°F
capacity, Cp kJ/kg
105 J/mol K 3.28 0.783 or cal/g
(solid) at - K
K
148°F/-100°C

Specific heat Btu/lb°F

kJ/kg
capacity, Cv 94.5 J/mol K 2.95 0.704 or cal/g
K
(gas) at 0.17 bar K

Specific heat Btu/lb°F

kJ/kg
capacity, Cv 67.9 J/mol K 2.12 0.506 or cal/g
K
(liquid) K

Ionization
10.84 eV
potential

log -0.77
KOW (Octanol/Wa
ter Partition
Coefficient)
 14

Melting point 175.55 K -97.6 °C -143.7 °F

Molecular 0.0706
32.042 g/mol lb/mol
Weight 4

Solubility in
1000 mg/ml (Miscible in water)
water

Sound velocity in
297 m/s 974 ft/s 665 mi/h
gas, at 0.17 bar

Sound velocity in
1100 m/s 3608 ft/s 2464 mi/h
liquid

Specific
Gravity (gas) 1.11
(relativ to air)

Specific Gravity
(liquid) (relativ 0.79
to water)

Specific Heat
Ratio (gas) - 1.23
cp/cv

Specific Heat
Ratio (liquid) - 1.20
cp/cv

Specific Volume 2342.6

0.146 m3/mol 4.55 m3/kg ft3/slug 72.81 ft3/lb
(gas) 0.17 bar 3

Specific Volume 0.00004

m3/mol 0.00127 m3/kg 0.655 ft3/slug 0.0204 ft3/lb
(liquid) 08

Standard molar kJ/kg

240 J/mol K 7.49 1.79 Btu/lb °F
entropy, S° (gas) K

Standard molar 127 J/mol K 3.96 kJ/kg 0.95 Btu/lb °F

entropy, S° K
(liquid)
 15

Surface tension 22.07 dynes/cm 0.02207 N/m

Thermal Btu/hr
0.202 W/m°C 0.116713
Conductivity ft °F

Triple 1.86*10- MPa=MN/ 1.84*1 2.70*1 psi=lbf

1.86*10-6 bar atm
point pressure 7
m2 0-6 0-5 /in2

Triple point -
175.50 K -97.7 °C °F
temperature 143.77

Vapor
MPa=MN/ psi=lbf
(saturation) 0.0169 127.0 mm Hg 0.1671 atm 2.46
m2 /in2
pressure

Viscosity, [lbf
[lbm /ft
dynamic 0.544 cP 365.55 11.36 s/ft2 *10-
s*10-6]
(absolute) 6
]

Viscosity, [ft2/
0.692 cSt 7.4
kinematic s*10-6]

Olefins(Alkenes)

Properties

Physical Properties

Physical State

 These double-bonded compounds are colourless and odourless in nature.

 However, ethene is an exception because it is a colourless gas but has a faintly sweet
odour.
 The first three members of the alkene group are gaseous in nature, the next fourteen
members are liquids and the remaining alkenes are solids.

 Solubility

 The alkenes are insoluble in water due to their nonpolar characteristics.

 But are completely soluble in nonpolar solvents such as benzene, ligroin, etc.

Boiling Point
 16

 The boiling points of the compounds increase as the number of carbon atoms in the
compound increases.
 When alkenes are compared with alkanes, it is found that the boiling points of both are
almost similar, as if the compounds are made up of the same carbon skeleton.
 The boiling point of straight-chain alkenes is more that branched-chain alkenes just as in
alkanes.

Melting Point

 The melting points of these double-bonded compounds depend upon the positioning of
the molecules.
 The melting point of alkenes is similar to that of alkanes.
 However, cis-isomer molecules have a lower melting point than trans- isomers as the
molecules are packed in a U-bending shape.

 Polarity

 Alkenes are weakly polar just like alkanes but are slightly more reactive than alkanes due
to the presence of double bonds.
 The π electrons which make up the double bonds can easily be removed or added as they
are weakly held.
 Hence, the dipole moments exhibited by alkenes are more than alkanes.
 The polarity depends upon the functional group attached to the compounds and the
chemical structures.
17