Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Comparison between MIP, BET, and ISEC

There is no recommendation of one of the introduced methods (MIP, BET, or ISEC) as the most accurate, reliable, and universally valid technique for the determination of the porous properties of a stationary phase. MIP, BET, and ISEC have rather to be regarded as three independent methodologies, those results complement one another to yield a precise estimation of the porosity of an investigated column packing. The most important characteristics, limitations, and methodological strengths of MIP, BET, and ISEC are intended to be discussed in this section. [Pg.26]

The three techniques are characterized by severe differences in their range of measurement  [Pg.26]

Compared with MIP and BET, ISEC is, however, the less comprehensively studied and developed method. The differences in retention of the PS standards, which are proportional to the percentage of pores, present within a certain range, are minor. This makes great demand to the stability of the employed chromatographic system and the constancy of the applied flow rate. This is particularly [Pg.26]

FIGURE 1.9 Schematic illustration of the measurement ranges of MIP, BET, and ISEC together with the pore range, being relevant for chromatographic packings. [Pg.27]

BET does not provide any information on the pore size distribution of the investigated medium. Consequently, nitrogen sorptiometry is restricted to fast and reliable determination of specific [Pg.27]


See other pages where Comparison between MIP, BET, and ISEC is mentioned: [Pg.26]   


SEARCH



BET

Betting

Comparison between

ISEC

MIP

© 2024 chempedia.info