Graphitized Sterling

Figure 7. Experimental adsorption isotherm of sodium beta-naphthalenesulfonate on graphitized Sterling FT, A, and the corresponding calculated potential isotherm, B...

Fig. 2.29 Comparison of nitrogen adsorption at 78 K on a carbon black (Sterling FT) before and after graphitization (a) The amount adsorbed on the ungraphitized sample plotted against the amount x, adsorbed on the graphitized sample, at the same pressure, b) The corresponding isotherms O, adsorption, , desorption on the ungraphitized sample (4 runs) A. adsorption A desorption, on the graphitized sample (4 runs).

Fig. 26. Arrangement of crystallites in an original and graphitized (2700°) particle of Sterling FT carbon black. [After W. R. Smith, and M. H. Polley, J. Phys. Chem. 60, 689 (1966).]...

Bruner, F., Bertoni, G., and Ciccioli, P., Comparison of physical and gas chromatographic properties of Sterling FT and Carbopack-C graphitized carbon blacks, J. Chromatogr., 120, 307, 1976. 

Figure 7.3 A comparison of experimental data for nitrogen adsorbed at 77 K on Sterling FT-G(2700) graphite with the modified nonlocal density fimctional theory [10] (MNLDFT) and unmodified [17] nonlocal density fimctional theory (NLDFT).

Figure 7.5, (a) and (b), illustrates the application of Eqn. (7.12) to the nitrogen isotherm obtained with Vulcan 3-G(2700). While graphitized at the same temperature as the Sterling FT, Vulcan has previously been reported as less uniform than the Sterling material [14]. As additional evidence, note that the commensurate film transition near 0.008 seen in Figs. 7.3 and 7.4 is not... 

Figure 7.4 (a) The expeiimental data (points) of Fig. 7.3 fitted by Eqn (7.12) using the deconvolution method (solid line), (b) The adsorptive potential distribution for the Sterling graphite. 

The modifications to the DFT calculations that bring about the agreement seen in Fig. 2, while empirical in magnitude, have a plausible theoretical basis. For the present, the modifications assume that the surface of Sterling FT-G(2700) deviates undetectably from uniformity. To the extent that this is not true, we must point out that the parameter distributions obtained through Eq. (9) and reported here should be viewed as relative to that graphite surface. 

---