The flow of the adsorbate/s seems to be decisive here. It can be continuous, it can be pulsatile.

I never done in dynamic chemisorption due to lack of facility. However static chemisorption using volumetric techniques also provide reliable results (surface coverage, basicity and distribution profile) for Fe catalyst.

One would have to wonder what advantages could be in the case of pulsatile flow of the adsorbates. I see an increase in investment and operating costs here, which is not beneficial. Perhaps a reverse flow would be preferable.

dynamic chemisorption is more practical and demonstrates saturation of active sites. Then by thermodesorption at a programmed temperature, you can identify the adsorption sites. it can carry out in this type of equipment the reduction at a programmed temperature and the oxidation at a programmed temperature. In short, you can know the number of adsorption sites, the oxidation-reduction state of the solid understudy.

It seems that I was confused by the term "pulse" and the question did not concern the change of the gas mixture flow regime, but the comparison of adsorption in the batch system with continuous adsorption, e.g. in a tubular adsorber. Of course, in the case of gases, it is better to use continuous adsorption, especially since after the adsorbent is saturated, temperature-programmed desorption can be additionally carried out. The concentration measurement is also carried out in a continuous manner here. But why the adsorption process in a batch system is called static and in a continuous system it is called dynamic, I do not know. In both cases, the concentration is a function of time, and in a continuous system, it is additionally a function of the current bed length.