Structural Characterisation of Natural and Industrial Porous Materials: A Manual 2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-47418-8_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gas Sorption

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the spent catalysts do not have the same sharp increase at low relative pressure, which suggests that the majority of the micropores have been filled, or their access blocked, with coke. This was confirmed by fitting the isotherms to a two-component, homotattic patch model with a Langmuir component to represent micropore adsorption and a BET component to represent mesopore multi-layer adsorption [33] . The micropore volume was then calculated from the Langmuir adsorption capacity parameter, and the fraction of the surface represented by the Langmuir model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…However, the spent catalysts do not have the same sharp increase at low relative pressure, which suggests that the majority of the micropores have been filled, or their access blocked, with coke. This was confirmed by fitting the isotherms to a two-component, homotattic patch model with a Langmuir component to represent micropore adsorption and a BET component to represent mesopore multi-layer adsorption [33] . The micropore volume was then calculated from the Langmuir adsorption capacity parameter, and the fraction of the surface represented by the Langmuir model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Currently, the most common test gas is nitrogen at 77 K and the optimal analysis approach to obtain the specific surface area is the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) theory based on a multilayer gas adsorption model. 88 On the other hand, the pore volume and pore size distribution of COFs can be determined by various approaches, 89 such as nonlocal density functional theory (NLDFT), quenched solid density functional theory (QSDFT), grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) method, Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) method, and Horvath–Kawazoe (HK) method. However, the analysis methods should be carefully selected according to the characteristics of different COF materials; otherwise, it can lead to inaccurate or completely incorrect analysis results.…”
Section: Structures and Characterizations Of Cofsmentioning
confidence: 99%