Experimental methods general points

The problems of defining and determining densities of finely porous solids, indicated in Section 5.3.3, apply to hep. A determination of the density of such a material is also one of porosity, since both properties are related to the solid volume the porosity per unit volume of material is equal to 1 -[mJ D X V)], where tn and are, respectively, the mass and density of the solid and V is the total volume. The density and porosity determined by any method entailing contact with a fluid can vary with the extent to which the solid has been dried, how it has been dried and the fluid employed. Fluids may differ in their abilities to penetrate the pore system, and the pore structure may be altered both during drying and by the action of the fluid subsequently introduced. 

These comments apply also to studies of pore size distribution or specific surface area, which have been widely studied using sorption isotherms or, in the former case, mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). Gregg and Sing 

Porosities have sometimes been reported as percentages by volume of the paste and sometimes as volumes per unit weight of dried paste. The first is the more meaningful, especially as in the latter case the water content of the material has not always been given, A similar comment applies to specific surface areas (L41). 

---

A general method has been developed for the estimation of model parameters from experimental observations when the model relating the parameters and input variables to the output responses is a Monte Carlo simulation. The method provides point estimates as well as joint probability regions of the parameters. In comparison to methods based on analytical models, this approach can prove to be more flexible and gives the investigator a more quantitative insight into the effects of parameter values on the model. The parameter estimation technique has been applied to three examples in polymer science, all of which concern sequence distributions in polymer chains. The first is the estimation of binary reactivity ratios for the terminal or Mayo-Lewis copolymerization model from both composition and sequence distribution data. Next a procedure for discriminating between the penultimate and the terminal copolymerization models on the basis of sequence distribution data is described. Finally, the estimation of a parameter required to model the epimerization of isotactic polystyrene is discussed. 

We have seen that it is often extremely difficult to arrive at exactly the same result when a number of different experimental methods are used for the determination of the specific surface area. Indeed, as Adamson (1990) has pointed out, one should in general expect the results to differ ... 

Since the physical state of reactive systems is different before gelation and after the gel point, different experimental methods are used — viscosimetry and dynamic mechanical spectroscopy, respectively. Here, a question arises on the generality of the processes proceeding at different stages of curing and on the comparability of results obtained by these two methods. 

Due to the effects of molecular size and shape and pore structure on the kinetics, the model cannot be used for general predictive purposes. In practice, in order to predict PAC adsorption, a series of experiments must first be carried out using the compound of interest, the activated carbon to be applied, and the water in which it is to be used. Equilibrium parameters, determined from the Freundlich adsorption isotherm equation, are used as input into a computer-based HSDM, which uses the method of least squares to minimize the difference between the experimental kinetic data points and the HSDM fit of the data [10]. When the best fit is achieved, the resultant kinetic parameters (liquid film mass transfer coefficient, k(, and the surface diffusion coefficient, DJ can then be used for the prediction of adsorption behavior under different conditions. 

Although it may well be true that the method of least squares is widely misused because of its apparent objectivity and general availability, it was clearly also true that much of the information obtainable from least squares is not used as completely as it could be. The problem of correlation between model parameters illustrates this clearly. High correlation between parameters amounts only to a statement about the data structure as opposed to the data values. The essential issue is the nature of the dependence of the parameter being determined on the data set. If two parameters have similar dependences, then their estimates are going to be correlated. Measuring more data points or a different set of data points would result in a different correlation matrix. The physical limitations of the experimental method, such as the inability to measure spectral characteristics of weak transitions or transitions that fall in inaccessible frequency regions, make it impractical to avoid correlations. 

A further approach to estimating flash points of mixed hydrocarbons is to sum volume fraction weighted flashing indexes which are calculated directly from the flash points of the individual components (5). Blend flash points estimated by the latter two methods generally agreed with experimental values within the limits of reproducibility of experimental data. 

---