Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41957681›Full record

ArticleChemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry2026

An International Laboratory Comparison Study on Approximating the Enthalpy of Adsorption via the Clausius-Clapeyron Approach.

Karen N Heinselman, Cullen M Quine, Katie Hurst, Joy Cho, Malia B Wenny, Jarad A Mason, Gaurav Verma, Shengqian Ma, Dalton Compton, Nicholas P Stadie and 23 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. An International Laboratory Comparison Study on Approximating the Enthalpy of Adsorption via the Clausius-Clapeyron Approach.Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

33 authors.

Karen N HeinselmanNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Cullen M QuineNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Katie HurstNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Joy ChoDepartment of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Malia B WennyDepartment of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Jarad A MasonDepartment of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Gaurav VermaDepartment of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA.
Shengqian MaDepartment of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA.
Dalton ComptonDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Nicholas P StadieDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Debabrata SenguptaDepartment of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Timur IslamogluDepartment of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Omar K FarhaDepartment of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Claudia ZloteaUniversity of Paris Est Creteil, CNRS, ICMPE, Thiais, France.
Andrei AgafonovUniversity of Paris Est Creteil, CNRS, ICMPE, Thiais, France.
Mehrdad AsgariThe Adsorption and Advanced Materials Laboratory (A2ML), Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ali Al-ShakhsThe Adsorption and Advanced Materials Laboratory (A2ML), Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Dolores Lozano-CastelloThe Adsorption and Advanced Materials Laboratory (A2ML), Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David Fairen-JimenezThe Adsorption and Advanced Materials Laboratory (A2ML), Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Hiroyasu FurukawaMaterials Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA.
Yuto YabuuchiMaterials Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA.
Darren P BroomHiden Isochema, Warrington, UK.
Michael J BenhamHiden Isochema, Warrington, UK.
Jose A VillajosProcess Analytic Technology, Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), Berlin, Germany.
Rafael Balderas-XicohténcatlMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Stuttgart, Germany.
Isabella FackelmannMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Stuttgart, Germany.
Michael HirscherMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Stuttgart, Germany.
William J HooverNumat, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
William MorrisNumat, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Timothy C WangNumat, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Philip A ParillaNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Thomas GennettNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Sarah ShuldaNational Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8946-1249

Funding

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Materials-based gas capture and storage is an increasingly important area of research. Robust and accurate determination of material properties is required for judicial selection of materials for specific applications and for engineering materials-based systems at scale. One key property is the strength of the adsorbate-adsorbent interaction often quantified via the isosteric enthalpy of adsorption. The heat of adsorption can be measured directly through calorimetry; however, a more widely used approach is to apply the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) equation to adsorption isotherms collected at different temperatures. While this approach appears to be straightforward, there exist multiple variants in the application of the methodologies employed. This raises the question on how these variations may or may not affect the determined results. Presented here is a discussion of the most common methodologies and a comparison of indirect determinations (via CC) of the isosteric enthalpy of adsorption by different laboratories on identical material. Included in that comparison are discussions on the measurement and analysis reproducibility. Importantly, details of the methodologies are shown to be critical when comparing enthalpies among laboratories, and different methodologies contribute to significant discrepancies and artifacts in the results. Recommendations are provided to promote robust determination and the reporting thereof.

Indexed as

adsorption enthalpyenthalpy of adsorptiongas adsorptionisosteric heatisotherm

Identifiers

PMID41957681
PMCPMC13065904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.