Talk:Adsorption

Typos

Resolved

Both words adsorbent and adsorbant are used in this article. I think the latter is a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.24.178 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Applications

Maybe some words need to be added on the applications of adsorption, e.g. air dryers delivering air at a pressure dewpoint below 0 degrees Celcius. These dryers commonly have two vessels, filled with desiccant (i.e. a drying agent that works on the principle of adsorption, such as Silica Gel, Activated Alumina or Molecular Sieves), in which one vessel is adsorbing, i.e. extracting a gaseous substance such as water vapour from the flow, while the other vessel is being regenerated, i.e. the desiccant has been saturated and is regenerated so that it will be able to take up moisture once again during the next cycle step. Twin tower adsorption dryers are mostly cycling dryers, in which on vessel is on-line, the other off-line.

Freunlich equation should be included

The Freunlich equation should be included or linked here. It already has a page, although it is mysteriously unlinked and hard to find; I can't get to it by searching and can't seem to make a link to here work, but it's under chromatography. Perhaps an experienced wikipedian can sort this out.

Chipotle 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

The spelling and grammar in this article needs to be polished. Personally I'm not profficient enough in English to do it, but someone definetely should..

129.240.84.143 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Lars Løvlie, Oslo, Norway

Confusion with absorption

I'm finding that a lot of people--and even some articles on Wikipedia--seem to be confused over absorption vs adsorption, perhaps we should emphasize the difference? I'll add a note concerning the difference. Kr5t 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Classifications of Activated Charcoal

The section on Adsorption#Activated_carbon was too long for summary style. I moved all the content about classifications to activated charcoal. I think it fits better with activated charcoal anyway. --JeffAMcGee 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adsorption Techniques

One more thing that should be here on this page is "Adsorption Techniques". So please if someone knows, add them here on the page of Adsorption.

Khawar Khalid Khawar2006 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (From Pakistan)

visualization of isotherms

I think it'd be good to visualize the isotherms, a la http://kostelec.czu.cz/temelin/conf2004/images/6_izot.jpg

It's easier to compare the isotherms when they're graphed, as opposed to displaying the equations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.120.34 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

yes put the isotherm visualization here. It's a key way to grasp the energy states of these complex systems. 97.119.171.120 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)-Kdog

adsorption in viruses

I think the section on adsorption in viruses should be moved to a sseparate page - it's a physically different process than the fundamental gas-solid processes discussed in this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpvwia (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Some minor corrections I would make

I would like to edit/delete (parts of) these two sentences (in bold):

1. Adsorption is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or, more rarely, a liquid (adsorbent), forming a molecular or atomic film (the adsorbate).

--Reason: Adsorption to a liquid is not at all rare! The biological world has an abundance of liquid-liquid interfaces (cell-membranes) on which there occur adsorption. Also adsorption to liquids are quite common in chemistry, protein chemistry and nanochemistry.

2. Adsorption is an exothermic process because energy is liberated, therefore enthalpy is always negative.

--Reason: I would just delete that sentence, it's probably correct if you talk about adsorption from a gas, but certainly not from a liquid --> just google endothermic+adsorption, and see for your selfs. Else, it should be stated that it's not a general statement.

agree/disagree? Comments would be very welcomed,

--Ruanha (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Henderson-Kisliuk

No offence to Mr. Henderson, but the Henderson-Kisliuk adsorption isotherm does not have the same status as e.g. the Langmuir isotherm. Furthermore the section should not read like an abstract from a scientific publication.

Perhaps the section could be shortened and/or the main content moved to the SAM page? 90.184.243.14 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello user at address 90.184.243.14,

Hello user at address 90.184.243.14,

Hmmm... I don’t really agree with your comments. I guess the disagreement boils down to what we think that Wikipedia stands for.

I was under the impression that one of the aims of Wikipedia was that it allowed information to be distributed freely worldwide and not to be controlled by commercialist corporations. You clearly disagree with this perception.

I take your point that the H-K adsorption isotherm isn't as popular as Langmuir & BET but the equation is peer reviewed and used by a number of research groups. Taking the info off the adsorption website would consign this peer reviewed equation to books and journals that people would have to pay to access.

I see this action as being very much against the Wikipedia ethos and think that the text should be reinstated immediately.

Moreover, if possible I think that people should be encouraged to add other “lower status” equations to the webpage so that as much information as possible is disseminated free of charge.

Regarding the text being written in a journal style format: does it really matter as long as it communicates the workings of the equation?

Incorrect link to absorption refrigerator

Under adsorption chilling, it says that the main page is absorption refrigerators. This is obviously a mistake, since the two topics are so different. Jojojlj (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent language use

Inconsistent language "adsorb to" and "adsorb on" both used. Discussion open as to which on is more correct. Adacus12 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed everything to "Adsorb to" for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adacus12 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)