Can surface energy measurements predict the impact of catalyst hydrophobicity upon fatty acid esterification over sulfonic acid functionalised periodic mesoporous organosilicas?

Sulfonic acid functionalised periodic mesoporous organosilicas (PrSO3 H-PMOs) with tunable hydrophobicity were synthesised via a surfactant-templating route, and characterised by porosimetry, TEM, XRD, XPS, inverse gas chromatography (IGC) and ammonia pulse chemisorption. IGC reveals that incorporation of ethyl or benzyl moieties into a mesoporous SBA-15 silica framework significantly increases the non-specific dispersive surface energy of adsorption for alkane adsorption, while decreasing the free energy of adsorption of methanol, reflecting increased surface hydrophobicity. The non-specific dispersive surface energy of adsorption of PMO-SO3H materials is strongly correlated with their activity towards palmitic acid esterification with methanol, demonstrating the power of IGC as an analytical tool for identifying promising solid acid catalysts for the esterification of free fatty acids. A new parameter [-ΔGCNP-P], defined as the per carbon difference in Gibbs free energy of adsorption between alkane and polar probe molecules, provides a simple predictor of surface hydrophobicity and corresponding catalyst activity in fatty acid esterification. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.

Pore size distributions derived from adsorption isotherms, immersion calorimetry, and isosteric heats: A comparative study

We compare the pore size distribution of a well-characterized activated carbon derived from model-dependent, adsorption integral equation (AIE) methods with those from model-independent, immersion calorimetry and isosteric heat analyses. The AIE approach applied to nitrogen gave a mean pore width of 0.57 nm; the CO2 distribution exhibited wider dispersion. Spherical model application to CO2 and diffusion limitations for nitrogen and argon were proposed as primary reasons for inconsistency. Immersion enthalpy revealed a sharp decrease in available area equivalent to a cut-off due to molecular exclusion when the accessible surface was assessed against probe kinetic diameter. Mean pore width was identified as 0.58 ± 0.02 nm, endorsing the underlying assumptions for the nitrogen-based AIE approach. A comparison of the zero-coverage isosteric heat of adsorption for various non-polar adsorptives by the porous test sample was compared with the same adsorptives in contact with a non-porous reference adsorbent, leading to an energy ratio or adsorption enhancement factor. A linear relationship between the energy ratio and probe kinetic diameter indicated a primary pore size at 0.59 nm. The advantage of this enthalpy, model-independent methods over AIE were due to no assumptions regarding probe molecular shape, and no assumptions for pore shape and/or connectivity.

Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.