
In most works in the current literature about liquid/solid adsorption kinetics, the respective abilities of pseudo-first order and pseudo-second kinetics for describing the data are compared. In nearly all cases, it is concluded that the latter surpasses the former. The aim of this work is to point out that more caution should be exercised in this comparison. Indeed, it appears that the method generally used is flawed and that it unfairly favors pseudo-second order kinetics. A different method is proposed to analyze experimental results. It is employed here to reexamine experimental data taken from the literature.
Kinetics, [CHIM] Chemical Sciences, Pseudo-first order, Adsorption, Pseudo-second order
Kinetics, [CHIM] Chemical Sciences, Pseudo-first order, Adsorption, Pseudo-second order
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2K | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.01% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 0.1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% |
