This question is initiated by a recently published paper about “recent advances in microcalorimetric studies”. I don’t name the paper title, because I don’t want to compromise its authors and because this is not a unique paper that could initiate such a question. The available literature includes, on frequent occasions, results of microcalorimetric measurements of chemisorption and more complicated gas-surface processes at metal/oxide systems and at other combined systems at different temperatures. Therewith, the gross calorimetric effects are sometimes described with no quantitative differentiation between chemisorption and absorption and processes proceeding at different surface phases or different temperatures. Such measurements are hardly-reproducible and hardly-interpretable. Of course, it is difficult to perform microcalorimetric measurements of any definite process in a complicated gas/solid system. But are calorimetric measurements useful if they are not associated with a specified physicochemical process?
Hi Victor,
Interesting question - not sure if I can answer it, but perhaps contribute. Using calorimetry you will get energy signals for both absorption and chemisorption, as you correctly suggest. To quantitatively distinguish which is which, you will need to use a complimentary technique such as surface Raman or FTIR, this will show the formation of chemical bonds or lack thereof, and also show if the bonds are strong enough to be chemical.
If the data is published without additional analyses, interpretation of it can be general at best without specific assignment. It might be possible to distinguish between the absorption and chemisorption by comparing it to known energy signals of similar processes since a stronger signal is expected for chemical reaction.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Chemical Engineering