4.6 Article

The Elovich isotherm equation: Back to the roots and new developments

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 262, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2022.118012

关键词

Energy distribution; Equilibrium data; Implicit isotherm; Isotherm comparison; Isotherm ranking; Lambert W function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work aims to refute the claim that the Elovich isotherm is significantly inferior to the Langmuir or Freundlich isotherm in correlating adsorption equilibrium data. The mistaken finding is a result of comparing linearized versions of the three isotherms based on different sets of transformed data. By discriminating isotherms based on untransformed data, the Elovich isotherm is shown to be highly competitive against the Langmuir or Freundlich isotherm. Furthermore, this work demonstrates how a modified form of the Elovich isotherm can be used to evaluate the energy distribution of heterogeneous surfaces.
This work seeks to debunk the claim that the Elovich isotherm is vastly inferior to the Langmuir or Freundlich isotherm in the correlation of adsorption equilibrium data. This mistaken finding, reported in many published articles, is a result of comparing linearized versions of the three isotherms, which are based on different sets of transformed data. When isotherm discrimination is performed on the basis of untransformed data (the conventional adsorbed phase concentration versus solution phase concentra-tion plot), the Elovich isotherm is shown to be highly and consistently competitive against the Langmuir or Freundlich isotherm. Predictions of untransformed data can be obtained from the three isotherms by using parameter estimates generated by either linear or nonlinear regression. To promote a wider appli-cation of the Elovich isotherm in adsorption research, this work shows how a modified form of the Elovich isotherm can be used to evaluate the energy distribution of heterogeneous surfaces. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据