Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experimental Confirmation of Different Mechanisms of Evaporation from Ink-Bottle Type Pores: Equilibrium, Pore Blocking, and Cavitation

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

Abstract

We present a new classification of physical mechanisms of adsorption hysteresis in ink-bottle type pores confirmed by experimental studies of capillary condensation of N 2, Ar, and Kr at 77.4 and 87.4 K in ordered 3D cage-like structures of FDU-1 and SBA-16 nanoporous templated silicas with narrow pore size distribution. An analysis of the hysteresis loops and scanning desorption isotherms on FDU-1 with ∼15 nm spherical pores reveals three mechanisms of evaporation: (1) evaporation from the blocked cavities controlled by the size of connecting pores (classical ink-bottle or pore blocking effect); (2) spontaneous evaporation caused by cavitation of the stretched metastable liquid; and, for the first time, (3) near-equilibrium evaporation in the region of hysteresis from unblocked cavities that have access to the vapor phase. Studies of the temperature dependence of the hysteresis loop showed a transition between the cavitation and the pore blocking regimes of evaporation, which opens up the possibility to tune the experimental conditions in order to characterize the pore neck size distribution. A similar transition was also observed for Kr in SBA-16 silica with ∼8.5 nm pores. The pressure of cavitation was found to depend on the pore geometry. This conclusion questions the conventional assumption that the pressure of cavitation, which determines the lower closure point of the hysteresis loop, is a unique function of the adsorbate and the temperature. The experimental results agree with the nonlocal density functional theory (NLDFT) of capillary condensation hysteresis in spherical cavities reported earlier (Ravikovitch, P. I.; Neimark, A. V. Langmuir 2002, 18, 1550).

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/la026140z

Cites

34 of 34 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

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Ravikovitch, P. I., & Neimark, A. V.
Venue
Langmuir
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
18
Issue
25
Pages
9830-9837
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
OpenAlex
W2015884186
Cited by
512
References
34
FWCI
8.42
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.