Are data obtained with these techniques comparable? There are some limits (instrumental or due to the sample) that don't allow us to compare the results. I've data for a low density material (inorganic, fine powder) with both techniques and results look quite different.
Both methods are based on completely different principles and comparability of results is much dependent on what you want to learn for your samples - and in which size range you want to gather information in the case of porous media. Can you provide a bit more details on which differences you are interested in? For example if it´s specific surface area from nonporous samples, then gassorption is more sensitive about surface texture and thus generates higher values...
Yes, I am agree with Mr. Hahn. If you want small pore size than BET is more accurate. Specify in details what size range you are looking.
Dear Dr Hahn and Dr Kitawat, thank you for your answer.
The data reported in analytical sheet of the sample (obtained by BET) are:
pore diameter 89 Angstrom
pore volume 0,89 ml/g
Surface area 398 m2/g
bulk density 442 g/L
whereas data from Hg inclusion porosimetry are:
Total Intrusion Volume = 1.4932 mL/g
Total Pore Area = 164.101 m²/g
Median Pore Diameter (Volume) = 0.2835 μm
Median Pore Diameter (Area) = 0.0078 μm
Average Pore Diameter (4V/A) = 0.0364 μm
Bulk Density = 0.4014 g/mL
Ive just an other question, values of pore size pore volume can change if the same saple (initially small pellet around 2 mm) is crushed up to have powder about 50 micron size?
- Badges
- Science topic