Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Density Functional Theory of Adsorption in Spherical Cavities and Pore Size Characterization of Templated Nanoporous Silicas with Cubic and Three-Dimensional Hexagonal Structures

Ravikovitch, Peter I., Neimark, Alexander V.·2002·Langmuir

Abstract

Adsorption in spherical cavities is studied by the nonlocal density functional theory (NLDFT). Theoretical results are compared with experimental data on ordered nanoporous materials with cubic Pm 3 n (SBA-1, HMM-3), cubic Im 3 m (SBA-16), and 3D hexagonal P 6 3 / mmc (SBA-2, SBA-12) cagelike structures. Quantitative comparison shows that capillary condensation of N 2 at 77 K in sufficiently small cavities (pore diameters 3 < D < 6 nm) occurs reversibly; the equilibrium condensation pressure is determined by the cavity diameter. In the case of hysteretic isotherms on materials with cavity diameters of >ca. 6 nm, the capillary condensation step corresponds to the theoretical limit of stability of the metastable adsorption film. For pores wider than ca. 10 nm, this limit is approximated by the macroscopic Derjaguin−Broekhoff−de Boer equations. Desorption from cavities of >6 nm is controlled by the size of the windows that connect the cavity with the bulk fluid. If the diameter of the window is below ca. 4 nm, desorption occurs via spontaneous cavitation of condensed liquid. We developed a NLDFT method for calculating pore size distributions (PSD) of cavities, the amount of intrawall porosity, and, in combination with X-ray diffraction, the wall thickness in siliceous materials with cagelike pores. We demonstrate that the adsorption method allows one to differentiate between the materials of different morphological symmetry. For regular cagelike structures, the NLDFT results are in remarkably good agreement with the estimates derived from geometrical considerations. In contrast, the conventional Barrett−Joyner−Halenda method of PSD analysis, based on the Kelvin equation, underestimates the pore sizes in cagelike nanopores by up to 100%.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/la0107594

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ravikovitch, P. I., & Neimark, A. V.
Venue
Langmuir
Published
2002-01-23
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
1550-1560
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
OpenAlex
W2041488869
Cited by
533
References
2
FWCI
17.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.