Exclusion of Salt Solutions from Activated Carbon Pores and the Relationship to Contact Angle on Graphite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exclusion of salts from the pores of activated carbon granules is demonstrated for the first time for the salts K 2 CO 3, K 2 HPO 4 and K 3 PO 4 . In soaking experiments, the concentrations of solutions of K 2 CO 3, K 2 HPO 4, and K 3 PO 4 inside the pores are less than in the bulk solutions. This phenomenon is observed by measuring the bulk concentration, which increases upon addition of carbon. This suggests that these salts are repelled by the carbon surface. In incipient wetness experiments, the three aforementioned salts do not enter the carbon at concentrations greater than ∼1 M. The contact angles of these three salt solutions on highly oriented pyrolitic graphite and polished resin-impregnated graphite surfaces rise with concentration and approach 90°, which suggests that these solutions would not enter activated carbon pores. By contrast, soaking, incipient wetness, and contact angle measurements for salts like ZnCl 2 and Zn(CH 3 COO) 2 show preferential adsorption by soaking (the salt is depleted from the solution), high imbibing limits (maximum incipient wetness volumes) at high solution concentrations, and a reduction of contact angle with increase in concentration. It is found that the behavior of these solutions on graphite surfaces approximates the solution behavior on an activated carbon that is relatively low in acidic surface functional groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".