Comparative adsorption of spherical argon and flexible n-butane in carbon slit pores - a GCMC computer simulation study

In this paper we investigate the difference between the adsorption of spherical molecule argon (at 87.3 K) and the flexible normal butane (at an equivalent temperature of 150 K) in carbon slit pores. These temperatures are equivalent in the sense that they have the same relative distances between their respective triple points and critical points. Higher equivalent temperatures are also studied (122.67 K for argon and 303 K for n-butane) to investigate the effects of temperature on the 2D-transition in adsorbed density. The Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulation is used to study the adsorption of these two model adsorbates. Beside the longer computation times involved in the computation of n-butane adsorption, n-butane exhibits many interesting behaviors such as: (i) the onset of adsorption occurs sooner (in terms of relative pressure), (ii) the hysteresis for 2D- and 3D-transitions is larger, (iii) liquid-solid transition is not possible, (iv) 2D-transition occurs for n-butane at 150 K while it does not happen for argon except for pores that accommodate two layers of molecules, (v) the maximum pore density is about four times less than that of argon and (vi) the sieving pore width is slightly larger than that for argon. Finally another feature obtained from the Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulation is the configurational arrangement of molecules in pores. For spherical argon, the arrangement is rather well structured, while for n-butane the arrangement depends very much on the pore size. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Chronic hepatitis B: A critical appraisal of current approaches to therapy

Background & Aims: Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) involves a number of complex and controversial issues. Expert opinions may differ from those of practicing hepatologists and gastroenterologists. We aimed to explore this issue further after a critical review of the literature. Methods: A panel of 14 international experts graded the strength of evidence for 16 statements addressing 3 content areas: patient selection, therapeutic end points, and treatment options. Available data relating to the statements were reviewed critically in 3 small work groups. After discussion of each statement with the entire panel, the experts voted anonymously to accept or reject statements based on the strength of evidence and their experience. A total of 241 members of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) responded to the same statements and their responses were compared with those of the experts. A discordant response was defined as a difference of more than 20% in any of the 5 graded levels of response (accept or reject) between the 2 groups. Results: With the exception of 2 statements, the experts’ responses were relatively uniform. However, the responses of the AASLD members were discordant from the experts in 12 statements, spanning all 3 content areas. Conclusions: Several areas of disagreement on the management of CHB exist between experts and AASLD members. Our results indicate a potential knowledge gap among practicing hepatologists. Better educational efforts are needed to meet the challenge of managing this complex disorder in which even expert opinion occasionally may disagree.