Statistical Physics Modeling of Sorption Isotherms of Aluminum,Iron,and Indium on Tetraphenylporphyrin (H 2 TPP) and Tetrakis(4-tolylphenyl)porphyrin (H 2 TTPP): Phenomenological Investigation of Metalloporphyrins at the Molecular Level

Abstract

A quartz crystal adsorbent functionalized with two promising porphyrins (the 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(4-tolylphenyl)porphyrin and the 5,10,15,20-tetraphenylporphyrin) was applied for the investigation of the adsorption phenomenon of aluminum chloride, iron chloride, and indium chloride. The aim is to prove new insights about the appropriate adsorption materials for metalloporphyrin fabrication. The equilibrium isotherms were measured at five adsorption temperatures (from 290 to 330 K) through the microbalance (QCM) method. The discussion of the experimental observations indicated that the adsorption of the aluminum chloride and the iron chloride was performed via a monolayer process. On contrary, the participation of the chloride ions in the double-layer adsorption of the indium chloride was explained by the layer-by-layer process. Overall, the statistical physics modeling of the experimental curves indicated that the number of ions per adsorbent site $n$ was found inferior to 1 for all the adsorption systems (multi-interaction process for the three ions). Interestingly, the physicochemical investigation of the three adopted models showed that the complexation mechanism of the tested porphyrins was an endothermic process since the two steric parameters ( $n$ and $P_{M}$ ) increased with the rise of the temperature. The FeCl₃ curves were discussed via a monolayer adsorption model which includes the parameters $a$ and $b$ (lateral interaction description), indicating the lowest stability of the formed iron-porphyrin complex. The energetic study showed that the adsorption energies $∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ of AlCl₃ on H₂TTPP and H₂TPP are superior to 40 kJ/mol (chemical adsorption mechanism), whereas the adsorption mechanisms of FeCl₃ and InCl₃ took place via a physical process since they presented adsorption energy values lower than 40 kJ/mol.

1. Introduction

In recent years, porphyrins have been studied as chemical sensor materials of various metals leading to the formation of metalloporphyrin complexes [1, 2]. The metal-porphyrin complexes have received increased interest in several biological and environmental processes such as stereochemistry study and molecular recognition [3–6]. Note here that the nature of the central ion has influenced the photophysical properties of porphyrins [7, 8]. For example, these tetrapyrrolic macrocycles are involved in the chlorophyll structure (magnesium-porphyrin complex) and the hemoglobin structure (iron-porphyrin complex), so they are known as pigments of life [8]. In addition, metalloporphyrin complexes were also used as ionophores in the development of potentiometric recognition sensors supported with their structural variety and coordination chemistry [7, 8]. In particular, the photosensitizing properties of aluminum(III)-porphyrin have promoted its use as potential ionophore of fluoride [9, 10]. Moreover, the aluminum(III)-porphyrin and the indium(III)-porphyrin have been potentially used as supramolecular building blocks [11] and numerous other areas (sensing, molecular recognition, polymerisation reactions, etc.) [12, 13]. Surprisingly, it was remarked that while several papers have been devoted to metalloporphyrin complexes including the metal centers zinc, rhodium, and cobalt [14, 15], little attention has been paid to the use of porphyrins as complexing compounds of aluminum(III), iron(III), and indium(III) (Figure 1) despite their contribution in the interesting fields indicated above. In fact, the adsorption of these three metals on two tested porphyrins (H₂TPP and H₂TTPP) was examined in the present investigation.

Figure 1

Chemical structure of the metalloporphyrin complexes.

In the literature, many approaches have been applied for the investigation of the adsorption mechanism of metals such as the sorption/reduction of heavy metal ions in environmental pollution management [16, 17]. Other experimental methods have been applied for the investigation of the adsorption mechanism [18–20], but in this work, the adsorption mechanisms of aluminum chloride, iron chloride, and indium chloride have been investigated by the QCM technique for many reasons. Firstly, this experimental method is a simple mass detector technique which requires the immobilization of porphyrins on the solid support of the quartz crystal. Then, the complexed mass of the metal into the macromolecule cavities can be controlled through the microbalance apparatus. Secondly, the metal-porphyrin complexes do not require an inert environment, and they are stable in the presence of water. Thirdly, the use of the QCM technique enables to plot the adsorption curves which describe the complexed amount of metallic ions on porphyrins at different temperatures. Lastly, the microscopic characteristics of the resulting film can be followed by easily fitting the experimental isotherms with analytical models [21].

According to the literature, the physical models were adopted by numerous authors to examine the adsorption problem. For example, the empirical expressions of the Langmuir and Freundlich models [22, 23] have been applied for the description of the isotherm curves, but they did not give a deep physicochemical analysis of the adsorption process. Importantly, the analytical adsorption models of the present investigation were established through the innovative statistical physics theory [24, 25] which provides the new vision about the metalloporphyrin description. Based on this idea, the fundamental aim of the modeling work of adsorption isotherms is to find the sufficient systematic model that can anticipate physical insights of porphyrin adsorption based on the physicochemical parameters of the statistical physics models [26].

2. Experimental Adsorption Isotherms

2.1. Materials

The aluminum(III) chloride (AlCl₃), the iron(III) chloride (FeCl₃), and the indium(III) chloride (InCl₃) are the tested adsorbates in this paper.

The tetrakis(4-tolylphenyl)porphyrin (H₂TTPP) and the tetraphenylporphyrin (H₂TPP) are the porphyrins used in these experiments. They were synthesized based on a published method (the Adler-Longo strategy) [27].

Figure 2 shows the synthesis methods of porphyrins H₂TPP and H₂TTPP.

Figure 2

Synthesis methods of the 5,10,15,20-tetraphenylporphyrin (H₂TPP) and the 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(4-tolylphenyl)porphyrin (H₂TTPP).

(b)

H₂TPP (Figure 2(a)) was synthesized through the reaction between propanoic acid (2 L) and benzaldehyde (40 mL). The synthesis of H₂TTPP (Figure 2(b)) was performed by introducing 4-tolualdehyde (12.5 g) with the propanoic acid (110 mL). Note that the synthesis of the two tested adsorbents has been performed by following the same procedure (reflux for 30 min, allowing for cooling, filtration, and drying under vacuum for 3 hours). The dried solid mass of H₂TPP was 9.76 g while the obtained mass of H₂TTPP was 3 g. The two solid compounds of porphyrins were dissolved in chloroform giving two solutions with concentration of 2.9 10^-2 mol·L^-1.

2.2. Experimental Measurements

The experimental QCM setup is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Experimental setup of the quartz crystal microbalance.

The QCM measurements were performed based on the piezoelectric quartz crystal [28, 29]. The crystal is a thin disc which is cut from the polished quartz (AT-cut). The fundamental resonant frequency of the quartz is 5 MHz, and the diameter of the disc is 2.54 cm [29]. A cleaning treatment was applied on the crystals by means of a Piranha solution at room temperature followed with rinsing with ethanol and drying with high purity nitrogen.

For the adsorption measurement, 60 μL of the adsorbents (porphyrins H₂TPP and H₂TTPP) was doped onto the clean crystal surface by the spin coating technique at 3500 rpm for 30 seconds. The functionalized crystals were dried at 393 K for 2 hours.

The functionalized crystal (adsorption cell) was placed in a Teflon probe, which was covered by a protective ring, and it was immersed in $V_{s} = 100 mL$ of pure water contained in the bain-marie. The stabilization of the resonant frequency in the reactor took about 1 hour, and we noted the crystal frequency $F_{0}$ after the stabilization. Then, we proceed with the injection of volumes of stock solutions of the adsorbates (AlCl₃/FeCl₃/InCl₃) in the reactor. The added volumes of adsorbates $V_{ad}$ should be calculated according to the next equation: $\begin{matrix} (1) & V_{ad} = \frac{c_{f} \times V_{s}}{c_{0}}, \end{matrix}$

where $V_{s}$ is the initial volume in the reactor, $c_{0}$ is the concentration of the prepared adsorbate solution, and $c_{f}$ is the final concentration in the reactor.

At least 15 injections into the reactor were performed using a micropipette, then the variation of the resonant frequency (corresponding to the new adsorbate concentration in the reactor) was determined as follows: $\begin{matrix} (2) & Δ f = F_{i} - F_{0} . \end{matrix}$

with $F_{i}$ as the resonant frequency after each adsorbate injection and $F_{0}$ characterizing the effect of the hydrostatic pressure on the quartz crystal. It can be understood from this equation that the frequency variation $Δ f$ is only the result of the mass variation $Δ m$ of the metal on the porphyrin surface and does not consider any effect from the quartz crystal on the adsorption process since the hydrostatic pressure effect on the quartz (frequency $F_{0}$ ) is not considered in the measured frequency variation $Δ f$ .

2.3. Sauerbrey’s Equation

The deposited mass of the metallic ions on the surface after each injection was determined according to the Sauerbrey hypothesis which links the mass variation to the frequency change [30–32]: $\begin{matrix} (3) & Δ f = - C \times Δ m, \end{matrix}$

where $C$ is the crystal sensitivity factor (Hz·cm²·μg^-1). Here, keep in mind that this relation should be applied when the resonant frequency variation is mainly due to the change of the deposited mass on the adsorption surface.

In order to justify the application of the Sauerbrey equation in a liquid medium, the total frequency should be quantified according to the crystal properties. This allows writing the total frequency as follows [19, 33, 34]: $\begin{matrix} (4) & Δ f = F_{i} - F_{0} = Δ f_{m} + Δ f_{T} + Δ f_{p} + Δ f_{r} + Δ f_{η, ρ}, \end{matrix}$

with, $Δ f_{m}$ being the effect of the mass variation, $Δ f_{T}$ being the effect of the temperature variation, $Δ f_{p}$ being the effect of the pressure variation, $Δ f_{r}$ being the effect of the crystal roughness, and $Δ f_{η, ρ}$ being the influences of the liquid properties (viscosity and density of the solution) described by Kanazawa and Gordon [33].

Indeed, the influences of the temperature and the roughness on the total frequency should be neglected since the present investigation was carried out using polished crystals at a fixed temperature. The hydrostatic pressure influence was not taken into account according to Equation (2). Furthermore, low effects of the solution properties were noted, so they were not considered. Thus, the impact of the variation of the deposited mass is the dominant factor for the frequency change ( $Δ f = Δ f_{m}$ ). This means that the experimental measurements of the frequency variations characterize only the interactions between the metals and the adsorbent sites of porphyrins. Therefore, the physicochemical characterization of the adsorption process should be only focus on the analysis of the interactions between the ions and the porphyrins without taking account of the quartz crystal sensor because the adsorption process is performed without the intervention of the crystal properties.

In fact, the adsorbed masses $Δ m$ (also noted $Q_{A}$ ) of the three adsorbates on the surface after each injection was determined from the resonant frequency variation (Equation (3)).

2.4. Results of Experimental Measurements

The experimental adsorbed quantities of Al³⁺, Fe³⁺, and In³⁺ on H₂TPP and H₂TTPP are plotted in Figure 4 at 290-330 K.

Figure 4

Experimental isotherms of the six adsorption systems given at five temperatures (290-330 K): system (a) AlCl₃-H₂TTPP, system (a $^{'}$ ) AlCl₃-H₂TPP, system (b) FeCl₃-H₂TTPP, system (b $^{'}$ ) FeCl₃-H₂TPP, system (c) InCl₃-H₂TTPP, and system (c $^{'}$ ) InCl₃-H₂TPP.

Observing carefully the experimental data of the six adsorption systems, it is clear that the behavior of the isotherm curve depends on the type of adsorbate. The isotherms of aluminum chloride on H₂TTPP and H₂TPP (systems (a) and (a $^{'}$ )) show the same behavior (a unique saturation level for all the temperatures). This indicates that the two porphyrin supports adsorbed one layer of aluminum ions without contribution of the chloride ions in the adsorption process. The adsorbed quantities of FeCl₃ (systems (b) and (b $^{'}$ )) decrease after the saturation level. In this case, the presence of an irreversible phenomenon is possible at a high iron chloride concentration which reflects weak iron-porphyrin binding. The indium chloride isotherms (systems (c) and (c $^{'}$ )) present two stability states (multilayer ionic adsorption). In this situation, it can be suggested that the two tested porphyrins H₂TPP and H₂TTPP adsorb many layers based on charge neutralization between particles having opposite charge signs (layer-by-layer (LBL) process) [24, 25, 35, 36].

In addition, comparing the performance of the six adsorption systems in terms of quantity, we can note the following order of adsorption performance: $Q_{A}$ (system (a)) > $Q_{A}$ (system (a $^{'}$ )) > $Q_{A}$ (system (b)) > $Q_{A}$ (system (b $^{'}$ )) > $Q_{A}$ (system (c)) > $Q_{A}$ (system (c $^{'}$ )). The adsorbed quantities are the highest for AlCl₃-H₂TTPP. Then, the adsorption compounds aluminum chloride and porphyrin H₂TTPP can be recommended for a real application of the metalloporphyrin complex. In the following section, the microscopic investigation of this experimental result is carried out through the physical modeling of the experimental isotherms.

3. Theory/Calculation

3.1. Statistical Physics Theory

The estimated values of the physical model parameters represent the key to understand the adsorption mechanism. The progress of this physical treatment is firstly seen against the well-known model of Langmuir (empirical model) [22]. The Langmuir model is developed by considering that one particle can interact with only one adsorbent site without taking account of the external factors. In general, this assumption led to wrong scientific conclusions. On the contrary, our statistical physics models correct this assumption by introducing a parameter defined by the number of adsorbed particles per adsorption site; it is noted in general by “ $n$ .” This correction can simply provide useful interpretations regarding the adsorption mechanism.

Based on the adsorption isotherm profiles, our statistical physics models can suggest various energies which are linked to different functional groups of the adsorbent surface contrary to the traditional equations of Langmuir [22] or Freundlich [23]. In the same direction, the statistical physics models are able to estimate the total number of the formed layer at all the reaction temperatures [24–26]. Note also that the multilayer adsorption of charged ions can be only carried out via a layer-by-layer (LBL) process [25, 36].

A general analysis of the adsorption data led to test two models: the monolayer model for AlCl₃ and FeCl₃ and the LBL multilayer model for InCl₃. The modeling work is then arranged as follows: (a) it is worth mentioning the general methodology which allows developing the physical models expressing the adsorbed amount corresponding to the adsorbate concentration, (b) the statistical physics model can be applied and discussed on the experimental data, and (c) the choice of the adopted model led to describing the adsorption reaction via its parameters.

3.2. Advanced Adsorption Models

To establish the physical model expressions, the equilibrium of the adsorption reaction can be expressed via the next equation [25, 37]: $\begin{matrix} (5) & n A + S ⇄ A_{n} - S, \end{matrix}$

where $A$ represents the tested adsorbates (AlCl₃/FeCl₃/InCl₃), $S$ is the adsorbent receptor site of porphyrin (H₂TPP or H₂TTPP), and $A_{n} - S$ is the resulting complex. The variable $n$ is a stoichiometric parameter which describes the number of bonded ions per adsorbent site. In general, this parameter can identify the nature of the adsorption process ( $n \leq 1$ : multi-interaction process, $n \geq 1$ : multi-ionic process) [38, 39].

This system is characterized by the chemical potential (μ) and the temperature ( $T$ ) imposing from the outside towards the considered system (grand canonical situation). In this case, the general expression of the partition function is written as a function of the occupation number ( $N_{i}$ ), the adsorption energy ( $- E_{i}$ ), and the Boltzmann factor (β) [37]: $\begin{matrix} (6) & z_{g c} = \sum_{N_{i}} e^{- β (- E_{i} - μ) N_{i}} . \end{matrix}$

Concerning the adsorption via one energy level ( $- E$ ) (one adsorbed layer), it can be expressed by [39] $\begin{matrix} (7) & z_{g c} = 1 + e^{β (E + μ)} . \end{matrix}$

For the LBL adsorption process (double-layer or multilayer), two energies can be responsible for this process. Note that the adsorption of the first layer is characterized by the energy ( $- E_{1}$ ), and the second energy ( $- E_{2}$ ) is in relationship with the formation of the additional adsorbed layers. The partition function is written as [38] follows:

For the double-layer model: $\begin{matrix} (8) & z_{g c} = 1 + e^{β (E_{1} + μ)} + e^{β (E_{1} + E_{2} + 2 μ)} . \end{matrix}$

For the multilayer model: $\begin{matrix} (9) & z_{g c} = 1 + e^{β (E_{1} + μ)} + \sum_{N_{i} = 2}^{L} e^{- β (- E_{1} - (N_{i} - 1) E_{2} - N_{i} μ)}, \end{matrix}$

with $L$ as the number of adsorbed layers.

Then, the average occupation number of $P_{M}$ porphyrin sites for the three models should be calculated using the next equation [37, 40]: $\begin{matrix} (10) & N_{o} = \frac{P_{M}}{β} \frac{\partial \ln (z_{g c})}{\partial μ} . \end{matrix}$

In this modeling work, the analytical development can be carried out by introducing the chemical potential of the perfect gas ( $μ_{p}$ ). $μ_{p}$ is introduced in the mathematical development of the models through its expression which is written as a function of the partition-function of translation ( $z_{Tr}$ ) and the number of adsorbates ( $N$ ) [40, 41]: $\begin{matrix} (11) & μ_{p} = \frac{1}{β} \ln (\frac{N}{z_{Tr}}), \end{matrix}$

where $z_{tr}$ can be written as a function of Planck’s constant, the volume $V$ , and the mass $m$ of the adsorbed particle [37]: $\begin{matrix} (12) & z_{Tr} = V {(\frac{2 π {m k}_{B} T}{h^{2}})}^{3 / 2} . \end{matrix}$

The investigation of the adsorption problem can be also performed using the chemical potential ( $μ_{r}$ ) of the real gas. In this case, the lateral interactions involving the adsorbates at free state are taken into account by means of the parameters $a$ (the pressure of cohesion) and $b$ (the covolume) [24, 25]: $\begin{matrix} (13) & μ_{r} = μ_{p} + \frac{1}{β} \ln \frac{1}{1 - b c} + \frac{1}{β} \frac{b c}{1 - b c} - 2 a c . \end{matrix}$

Then, the adsorbed quantity $Q_{A}$ (μg/cm ² ) can be determined by the following equation [37, 40]: $\begin{matrix} (14) & Q_{A} = n \times N_{0} . \end{matrix}$

Finally, we get the analytical expressions of the six adsorption models:

The monolayer model of the ideal gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (15) & Q_{A} = {n P}_{M} \times (\frac{{(c / c_{1 / 2})}^{n}}{1 + {(c / c_{1 / 2})}^{n}}), \end{matrix}$

where $c_{1 / 2}$ involves the molar adsorption energy ( $- Δ E_{1 / 2}$ ) (kJ/mol), the adsorption temperature $T$ (K), and the adsorbate solubility $S$ (mol/L). It has the following formula: $\begin{matrix} (16) & c_{1 / 2} = {S e}^{- (Δ E_{1 / 2} / R T)} . \end{matrix}$

The monolayer model of the real gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (17) & Q_{A} = \frac{{n P}_{M}}{1 + {(w_{1 / 2} ((1 - b c) / c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))})}^{n}}, \end{matrix}$

where the energetic coefficient $w_{1 / 2}$ is $\begin{matrix} (18) & w_{1 / 2} = {S e}^{- (Δ E_{1 / 2} / R T)} . \end{matrix}$

The double-layer and multilayer models include two energetic coefficients involving two molar adsorption energies ( $- Δ E_{1}$ ) and ( $- Δ E_{2}$ ).

The double-layer model of the ideal gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (19) & Q_{A} = {n P}_{M} \frac{{(c / c_{1})}^{n} + 2 {(c / c_{2})}^{2 n}}{1 + {(c / c_{1})}^{n} + {(c / c_{2})}^{2 n}}, \end{matrix}$

where the energetic variables $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are $\begin{matrix} (20) & c_{1, 2} = {S e}^{- (Δ E_{1, 2} / R T)} . \end{matrix}$

The double-layer model of the real gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (21) & Q_{A} = {n P}_{M} \frac{{(c / w_{1} (1 - b c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))})}^{n} + 2 {(c / w_{2} (1 - b c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))})}^{2 n}}{1 + {(c / w_{1} (1 - b c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))})}^{n} + {(c / w_{2} (1 - b c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))})}^{2 n}}, \end{matrix}$

where $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ are $\begin{matrix} (22) & w_{1, 2} = {S e}^{- (Δ E_{1, 2} / R T)} . \end{matrix}$

The multilayer model of the ideal gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (23) & Q_{A} = {n P}_{M} \times (\frac{{(c / c_{1})}^{n} + {(c / c_{1})}^{n} {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - 2 {(c / c_{2})}^{n L} - L {(c / c_{2})}^{n (L + 1)} + {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n L}) / (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n}))}{(1 - {(c / c_{1})}^{n}) (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n}) + {(c / c_{1})}^{n} {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n L})}), \end{matrix}$

where $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are given by Equation (20).

The multilayer model of the real gas approach: $\begin{matrix} (24) & Q_{A} = {n P}_{M} \times (\frac{{(c / c_{1})}^{n} + {(c / c_{1})}^{n} {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - 2 {(c / c_{2})}^{n L} - L {(c / c_{2})}^{n (L + 1)} + {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n L}) / (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n}))}{(1 - {(c / c_{1})}^{n}) (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n}) + {(c / c_{1})}^{n} {(c / c_{2})}^{n} (1 - {(c / c_{2})}^{n L})}), \end{matrix}$

where $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are written as $\begin{matrix} (25) & c_{1, 2} = w_{1, 2} (1 - b c) e^{2 β a c} e^{- (b c / (1 - b c))}, \end{matrix}$

with $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ are previously mentioned (Equation (22)).

3.3. Adjustment of Adsorption Models with Experimental Isotherms

The six physical adsorption models were applied on the experimental isotherms by means of a numerical fitting program [42]. The mathematical fitting method is based on the Levenberg-Marquardt iterating algorithm using a multivariable nonlinear regression program [40, 43]. The criteria to adopt a descriptive model are the determination coefficient $R^{2}$ , the RMSE coefficient (residual root mean square error), and the well-known AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) coefficient. The first error coefficient ( $R^{2}$ ) is a standardized measure of the fit goodness [43, 44]. If the coefficient $R^{2}$ value is near the unit, we are in the case of the best fitting model. The second error coefficient (RMSE) is a nonstandardized measure of the fit goodness [44–47]. The best fitting model is obtained when the RMSE value is inferior to 2. The third adjustment coefficient (AIC) shows the best fitting with the model having the lowest AIC values [36]. These three adjustment coefficients are interpreted to adopt a physical model.

Tables 1 and 2 show the numerical values of the error adjustment coefficients.

Table 1

Values of the error adjustment coefficients $R^{2}$ , RMSE, and AIC deduced from fitting the experimental isotherms of AlCl₃, FeCl₃, and InCl₃ on 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(4-methylphenyl) porphyrin H₂TTPP (systems (a), (b), and (c)) with the three advanced models.

Adsorption model	Monolayer model (ideal gas)			Monolayer model (real gas)			Double-layer model (ideal gas)
Adjustment coefficient	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC
Adsorption system (a): AlCl₃-H₂TTPP
290 K	0.98	1.23	14.99	0.93	2.64	19.88	0.90	2.98	22.99
300 K	0.99	1.22	15.02	0.94	2.88	19.84	0.91	2.99	23.64
310 K	0.98	1.56	18.71	0.95	2.97	20.34	0.92	2.93	23.84
320 K	0.99	1.34	17.64	0.93	2.56	19.65	0.89	3.01	21.98
330 K	0.98	1.89	16.76	0.94	3.24	20.89	0.91	4.02	22.76
Adsorption system (b): FeCl₃-H₂TTPP
290 K	0.83	5.02	29.01	0.98	1.13	20.51	0.92	2.81	24.72
300 K	0.84	5.12	28.91	0.98	1.11	20.3	0.91	2.98	24.61
310 K	0.82	5.49	28.23	0.99	1.23	21.44	0.93	3.07	25.94
320 K	0.82	4.99	28.99	0.97	1.32	20.98	0.91	3.51	25.16
330 K	0.82	5.01	28.54	0.97	1.29	21.52	0.92	3.11	25.28
Adsorption system (c): InCl₃-H₂TTPP
290 K	0.62	7.89	36.66	0.89	5.77	30.76	0.98	1.98	27.02
300 K	0.71	7.92	36.7	0.88	5.64	30.72	0.99	2.11	27.64
310 K	0.65	8.13	39.4	0.87	6.78	32.65	0.99	1.99	26.91
320 K	0.64	8.13	38.8	0.82	6.36	31.47	0.97	1.98	26.98
330 K	0.67	7.62	38.4	0.79	5.73	32.28	0.97	2.02	26.56

Table 2

Values of the error fitting coefficients $R^{2}$ , RMSE, and AIC deduced from the numerical adjustment of experimental data of AlCl₃, FeCl₃, and InCl₃ on tetraphenylporphyrin H₂TPP (systems (a $^{'}$ ), (b $^{'}$ ), and (c $^{'}$ )) with the three statistical physics models.

Adsorption model	Mono-layer model (ideal gas)			Mono-layer model (real gas)			Double-layer model (ideal gas)
Adjustment coefficient	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC	$R^{2}$	RMSE	AIC
Adsorption system (a $^{'}$ ): AlCl₃-H₂TPP
290 K	0.98	1.11	11.89	0.92	3.44	15.67	0.89	3.89	18.22
300 K	0.97	1.12	12.33	0.93	3.12	15.80	0.90	3.83	18.51
310 K	0.98	1.32	13.56	0.93	3.17	16.42	0.89	3.99	19.56
320 K	0.99	1.36	13.64	0.94	3.43	17.02	0.89	4.15	19.20
330 K	0.98	1.59	14.52	0.93	3.51	16.45	0.92	4.17	18.92
Adsorption system (b $^{'}$ ): FeCl₃-H₂TPP
290 K	0.81	4.02	22.31	0.98	1.89	14.30	0.90	3.24	18.22
300 K	0.85	4.54	23.52	0.97	1.82	14.76	0.92	3.54	18.97
310 K	0.83	4.72	23.54	0.98	1.73	15.64	0.94	3.61	19.45
320 K	0.84	4.99	22.92	0.96	1.71	15.99	0.92	4.04	18.83
330 K	0.83	5.15	23.64	0.98	1.66	15.78	0.91	4.22	19.34
Adsorption system (c $^{'}$ ): InCl₃-H₂TPP
290 K	0.73	6.66	30.14	0.86	4.54	26.12	0.97	1.28	19.04
300 K	0.73	6.51	31.24	0.85	4.82	26.45	0.98	1.34	20.42
310 K	0.75	7.21	30.74	0.83	4.71	27.08	0.99	1.52	20.84
320 K	0.74	7.54	31.67	0.80	5.02	27.64	0.98	1.49	20.94
330 K	0.71	6.94	31.84	0.82	5.64	27.54	0.98	1.69	21.06

According to Tables 1 and 2, the aluminum chloride isotherms (systems (a) and (a $^{'}$ )) should be analyzed by the monolayer model of ideal gas which shows $R^{2}$ values near the unit and low values of RMSE and AIC for the five reaction temperatures. However, the adsorption isotherms of FeCl₃ (systems (b) and (b $^{'}$ )) show the best coefficients of adjustment with the monolayer model of real gas. This explains that the decline of the FeCl₃ isotherms at high equilibrium concentration is fundamentally due to the lateral interaction impacts and confirms that the aluminum ions are the best compounds for porphyrin complexation in terms of stability. On the other hand, in light of the selection criteria, the indium chloride adsorption (systems (c) and (c $^{'}$ )) should be described via the double-layer model of ideal gas. In this case, two adsorbed layers are formed based on charge neutralization between cations (In³⁺) and anions (Cl^-).

Figure 5 illustrates the monolayer adsorptions of aluminum chloride and iron chloride and the double-layer adsorption of indium chloride on H₂TTP and H₂TPP.

Figure 5

Illustration of the monolayer adsorption of AlCl₃ and FeCl₃ and the LBL double-layer adsorption of InCl₃ on the two porphyrins H₂TPP and H₂TTPP.

(b)

3.4. Analysis of Physicochemical Parameters

The mon-layer model (ideal gas), devoted for the description of the AlCl₃ isotherms, was governed by three parameters (the number of aluminum ions per receptor site $n$ , the number of porphyrin sites $P_{M}$ , and the energetic parameter $c_{1 / 2}$ (Equation (16))). For FeCl₃, the monolayer model (real gas) presents the parameter $a$ (cohesion pressure) and the parameter $b$ (covolume) in addition to the steric variables $n$ and $P_{m}$ and the energetic parameter $w_{1 / 2}$ . The LBL double-layer adsorption of InCl₃ can be interpreted via four physicochemical variables ( $n$ and $P_{M}$ (steric variables) and $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ (Equation (20))).

All fitting parameters values are given in Tables 3 and 4. The study of the adsorption model parameters attributes interesting microscopic interpretations of the porphyrin complexation.

Table 3

Values of the physicochemical parameters ( $n$ , $P_{M}$ , $a$ , $b$ , $c_{1 / 2}$ , $w_{1 / 2}$ , $c_{1}$ , and $c_{2}$ ) affecting the adsorption of AlCl₃, FeCl₃, and InCl₃ on 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(4-methylphenyl) porphyrin H₂TTPP (systems (a), (b), and (c)) at five temperatures.

System	Parameters	290 K	300 K	310 K	320 K	330 K
System (a): AlCl₃-H₂TTPP	$n$	0.80 (±0.02)	0.81 (±0.015)	0.89 (±0.019)	0.99 (±0.024)	1.01 (±0.019)
	$P_{m}$	281.7 (±8.2)	320.6 (±9.4)	366.1 (±8.9)	401.9 (±10.9)	450.7 (±11.7)
	$c_{1 / 2}$	0.015 (±0.005)	0.015 (±0.006)	0.016 (±0.005)	0.016 (±0.005)	0.017 (±0.006)

System (b): FeCl₃-H₂TTPP	$n$	0.71 (±0.025)	0.73 (±0.015)	0.79 (±0.022)	0.84 (±0.019)	0.89 (±0.02)
	$P_{m}$	228.4 (±12.1)	262.6 (±10.9)	298.7 (±9.99)	333.6 (±8.79)	389.8 (±9.78)
	$w_{1 / 2}$	0.011 (±0.004)	0.011 (±0.005)	0.012 (±0.006)	0.011 (±0.006)	0.012 (±0.007)
	$a$ ( $\times 10^{- 9}$ )	8.3 (±0.2)	7.2 (±0.3)	6.1 (±0.4)	5.8 (±0.3)	5.1 (±0.5)
	$b$ ( $\times 10^{- 12}$ )	2.6 (±0.1)	3.2 (±0.2)	3.9 (±0.2)	4.8 (±0.4)	5.7 (±0.4)

System (c): InCl₃-H₂TTPP	$n$	0.63 (±0.018)	0.66 (±0.023)	0.69 (±0.016)	0.74 (±0.022)	0.82 (±0.016)
	$P_{m}$	142.3 (±9.52)	189.4 (±10.7)	233.8 (±12.8)	289.4 (±11.2)	320.5 (±10.9)
	$c_{1}$	0.0033 (±0.0007)	0.003 (±0.008)	0.0035 (±0.0003)	0.0032 (±0.0009)	0.0036 (±0.0004)
	$c_{2}$	0.026 (±0.007)	0.025 (±0.009)	0.026 (±0.008)	0.025 (±0.004)	0.027 (±0.007)

Table 4

Values of the physicochemical variables ( $n$ , $P_{M}$ , $a$ , $b$ , $c_{1 / 2}$ , $w_{1 / 2}$ , $c_{1}$ , and $c_{2}$ ) deduced from the fitting of experimental data of AlCl₃, FeCl₃, and InCl₃ on tetraphenylporphyrin H₂TPP (systems (a $^{'}$ ), (b $^{'}$ ), and (c $^{'}$ )) with the three adopted models.

System	Parameters	290 K	300 K	310 K	320 K	330 K
System (a $^{'}$ ): AlCl₃-H₂TPP	$n$	0.75 (±0.021)	0.77 (±0.026)	0.83 (±0.019)	0.91 (±0.023)	0.95 (±0.017)
	$P_{m}$	258.2 (±12.2)	301.2 (±9.77)	332.7 (±8.97)	368.2 (±9.65)	421.4 (±10.7)
	$c_{1 / 2}$	0.009 (±0.0007)	0.011 (±0.006)	0.009 (±0.0008)	0.01 (±0.003)	0.008 (±0.0009)

System (b $^{'}$ ): FeCl₃-H₂TPP	$n$	0.67 (±0.023)	0.70 (±0.019)	0.74 (±0.02)	0.79 (±0.022)	0.85 (±0.016)
	$P_{m}$	184.5 (±9.71)	231.4 (±8.69)	268.2 (±9.43)	312.2 (±10.3)	355.2 (±8.46)
	$w_{1 / 2}$	0.007 (±0.0002)	0.008 (±0.0001)	0.008 (±0.0003)	0.0075 (±0.0001)	0.0069 (±0.0006)
	$a$ ( $\times 10^{- 9}$ )	10.5 (±0.8)	9.4 (±0.9)	8.4 (±0.6)	7.9 (±0.5)	7.12 (±0.5)
	$b$ ( $\times 10^{- 12}$ )	1.2 (±0.2)	1.7 (±0.1)	2.4 (±0.1)	3.3 (±0.2)	4.1 (±0.3)

System (c $^{'}$ ): InCl₃-H₂TPP	$n$	0.50 (±0.015)	0.56 (±0.016)	0.61 (±0.015)	0.70 (±0.019)	0.79 (±0.02)
	$P_{m}$	105.4 (±7.89)	147.3 (±8.45)	194.3 (±10.5)	238.4 (±9.34)	279.4 (±8.64)
	$c_{1}$	0.002 (±0.0007)	0.003 (±0.006)	0.0031 (±0.0009)	0.0029 (±0.008)	0.0032 (±0.0005)
	$c_{2}$	0.023 (±0.005)	0.024 (±0.007)	0.025 (±0.003)	0.025 (±0.008)	0.026 (±0.002)

3.4.1. Steric Interpretation

Basically, the parameters $n$ and $P_{M}$ are typified by a steric aspect. The product of these parameters is the result of the maximum adsorption capacity [48].

The evolution of the two steric parameters versus temperature is reported in Figure 6.

Figure 6

Evolutions of the two steric parameters as a function of temperature: (a) evolution of the number of bonded ions per site $n$ and (b) variation of the density of receptor porphyrin sites $P_{M}$ .

(b)

From Figure 6(a), the $n$ values are found inferior to 1 for the six adsorption systems. For example, regarding the values of this parameter that are inferior to 0.5, it is clear that the complexation mechanism is a multi-interaction process (the ions can be interacted with two adsorption sites) [39].

The fitted values of $P_{M}$ describe the number of porphyrin sites accessible to the adsorbate ions at each temperature. Figure 6(b) demonstrates that the adsorptions of AlCl₃ and FeCl₃ present the highest values of $P_{M}$ at all the temperatures: $P_{M}$ (AlCl₃) > $P_{M}$ (FeCl₃) > $P_{M}$ (InCl₃). In fact, the anions are not involved in the complexation processes of AlCl₃ and FeCl₃, so there is a fast insertion of the metallic ions in the porphyrin cavities. However, the contribution of the anionic particles in InCl₃ adsorption prevents the complexation of porphyrin by the indium ions because of the interaction between the two adsorbed layers.

Furthermore, it is noted from Figure 4 that the temperature exerts exactly the same influence on the six complexation systems: once the temperature increases, the adsorption capacities increase. This is often explained from Figure 6 which shows that the values of the coefficients $n$ (Figure 6(a)) and $P_{M}$ (Figure 6(b)) rise with the temperature. It can be concluded that the thermal agitation effect favors the adsorption dynamics: the rise of temperature activates other receptor sites to contribute in the complexation process.

3.4.2. Van der Waals Parameter Behaviors

It can be noticed that despite the AlCl₃ and FeCl₃ adsorptions being both monolayer adsorption processes, where there is no contribution of the chloride ions at the layer formation, the fitted values of $P_{M}$ are the lowest for FeCl₃. Thus, the physical model that describes the FeCl₃ adsorption includes the lateral interaction effect by the intermediate of the parameter $a$ (cohesion pressure) and the parameter $b$ (covolume) [49].

It can be concluded that the decrease of FeCl₃ isotherms (Figures 4(b) and 4(b $^{'}$ )) can be the result of the high adsorbate-adsorbate interaction which reflects a weak binding Fe³⁺-porphyrin compared to the Al³⁺-porphyrin binding.

Overall, it can be concluded that the use of aluminum chloride guarantees more stability during the metalloporphyrin formation.

The values of these two parameters for H₂TPP and H₂TTPP are summarized in Figure 7.

Figure 7

Variations of the adjusted values of the cohesion pressure $a$ and the covolume $b$ as a function of temperature (290-330 K) for the indium chloride adsorption.

Generally, the interactions of the particles (lateral interactions) are characterized by the cohesion pressure $a$ . One can see from Figure 7 that $a (FeC l_{3} ‐ H_{2} TTPP) < a (FeC l_{3} ‐ H_{2} TPP)$ . Therefore, the H₂TTPP is the best complexing porphyrin of the iron ions because it presents the lowest impact of the lateral interactions on the adsorption process. On the other hand, it should be noted, from Figure 7, that the H₂TTPP presents the highest values of the covolume $b$ : $b (FeC l_{3} ‐ H_{2} TTPP) > b (FeC l_{3} ‐ H_{2} TPP)$ . In this case, the distance between the adsorbates is high which indicates that the iron ions can be easily adsorbed by the surface and causes an expansion in the adsorbed amount. This result confirms the suggestion of the porphyrin H₂TTPP as a suitable material for the metalloporphyrin adsorption.

Furthermore, it is seen from Figure 7 that the parameter $a$ declines with the expansion of the temperature for the FeCl3 adsorption while the covolume $b$ increases. The decrease of the cohesion pressure indicates that the lateral interaction effect is low at high temperature. The increase of the parameter $b$ reflects a strong distance between the adsorbates. The lateral interaction description explains the highest performance of the iron adsorption at 330 K and shows the endothermic nature of the studied process.

3.4.3. Energetic Calculation

According to Equations (16), (18), and (20), the molar energies of the six adsorption mechanisms can be calculated by means of the energetic coefficients, $c_{1 / 2}$ for AlCl₃, $w_{1 / 2}$ for FeCl₃, and $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ for InCl₃, which are calculated from the numerical simulation of the three adopted models [36, 48].

For aluminum chloride adsorption, $\begin{matrix} (26) & - Δ E_{1 / 2} = R T \times \ln (\frac{c_{1 / 2}}{S ({AlCl}_{3})}) . \end{matrix}$

For iron chloride adsorption, $\begin{matrix} (27) & - Δ E_{1 / 2} = R T \times \ln (\frac{w_{1 / 2}}{S ({FeCl}_{3})}) . \end{matrix}$

For indium chloride adsorption, $\begin{matrix} (28) & - Δ E_{1} = R T \times \ln (\frac{c_{1}}{S ({InCl}_{3})}), \\ (29) & - Δ E_{2} = R T \times \ln (\frac{c_{2}}{S ({InCl}_{3})}) . \end{matrix}$

The values of the molar energies and their variations via the temperature are reported in Table 5 and Figure 8.

Table 5

Values of the molar adsorption energies $∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ for AlCl₃ and FeCl₃ adsorptions and $∣ - Δ E_{1} ∣$ and $∣ - Δ E_{2} ∣$ for InCl₃ adsorption given in modulus values at 290, 300, 310, 320, and 330 K.

Adsorption system	Adsorption energy	290 K	300 K	310 K	320 K	330 K
System (a): AlCl₃-H₂TTPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	61.4 (±2.1)	69.5 (±2.3)	70.6 (±3.1)	75.4 (±2.9)	80.3 (±3.9)
System (a $^{'}$ ): AlCl₃-H₂TPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	48.4 (±2.1)	57.2 (±2.4)	60.2 (±1.8)	63.4 (±3.1)	67.4 (±2.9)
System (b): FeCl₃-H₂TTPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	32.9 (±1.8)	36.4 (±1.7)	38.7 (±2.5)	40.8 (±2.2)	43.1 (±2.3)
System (b $^{'}$ ): FeCl₃-H₂TPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	30.2 (±1.9)	33.6 (±1.8)	36.7 (±1.8)	38.4 (±2.1)	40.9 (±2.2)
System (c): InCl₃-H₂TTPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	26.4 (±2.3)	30.4 (±1.6)	33.5 (±1.5)	36.8 (±1.9)	38.7 (±1.7)
System (c): InCl₃-H₂TTPP	$∣ - Δ E_{2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	17.2 (±1.2)	20.4 (±1.5)	23.3 (±1.4)	25.7 (±1.1)	28.8 (±1.6)
System (c $^{'}$ ): InCl₃-H₂TPP	$∣ - Δ E_{1} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	22.3 (±2.7)	26.1 (±2.4)	29.4 (±2.1)	33.1 (±1.9)	35.6 (±1.8)
System (c $^{'}$ ): InCl₃-H₂TPP	$∣ - Δ E_{2} ∣$ (kJ/mol)	12.7 (±1.5)	16.7 (±1.6)	18.9 (±2.0)	20.4 (±2.1)	21.1 (±1.8)

Figure 8

Evolutions of the molar adsorption energies of the six adsorption systems as a function of temperature: $∣ - Δ E_{1 / 2} ∣$ for AlCl₃ and FeCl₃, and $∣ - Δ E_{1} ∣$ and $∣ - Δ E_{2} ∣$ for InCl₃.

According to Table 5, for the indium chloride adsorption, it is obviously remarked that the calculated values of $∣ (- Δ E_{1}) ∣$ which characterizes the indium-porphyrin interaction are greater than those of $∣ (- Δ E_{2}) ∣$ (interaction between the two adsorbed layers [36]). Therefore, we can conclude that the interaction $∣ (- Δ E_{1}) ∣$ should be compared to the other adsorption system energies ( $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ ) to evaluate the stability of the formed metalloporphyrin complexes.

Comparing the $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ and the $∣ (- Δ E_{1}) ∣$ values of the six complexation systems (Table 5 and Figure 8), we observe that $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ (AlCl₃-H₂TTPP) > $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ (AlCl₃-H₂TPP) > $∣ (- Δ E_{1}) ∣$ (FeCl₃-H₂TTPP) > $∣ (- Δ E_{1}) ∣$ (FeCl₃-H₂TPP) > $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ (InCl₃-H₂TTPP) > $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ (InCl₃-H₂TPP). It can be noticed that the affinity of the porphyrin H₂TTPP cavities to the metallic ions is higher than the tetraphenylporphyrin sites H₂TPP for the three ions and confirms that the aluminum chloride-porphyrin (H₂TTPP) is the best adsorption system suited for metalloporphyrin application because it presents the highest adsorption energies values for the five reaction temperatures.

It can be also observed that the molar energies rise with the expansion of the temperature (Figure 8). This can be interpreted by the endothermic behavior of the six studied processes.

Furthermore, the energies $∣ (- Δ E_{1 / 2}) ∣$ of AlCl₃ are superior to 40 kJ/mol for all the temperatures. For this system, the adsorption is carried out via a chemical process involving covalent bonds (irreversible phenomenon) [39, 50–52]. In this case, the adsorption is a dissociative mechanism (there is no possibility of a desorption process) because there is a change in the electron density between the adsorbent and the adsorbed particle. Moreover, a multilayer adsorption is impossible due to the high interaction between the adsorbed layer and the adsorbent surface (e.g., AlCl₃ adsorption).

In contrast, all the other adsorption mechanisms (FeCl₃ and InCl₃) take place via a physical process since they present adsorption energy values lower than 40 kJ/mol [42, 50, 51]. During physisorption, the adsorbed particles retain their individual properties and there is no change in the structure of the components of the adsorption system. The system is weakly energetic (low adsorbate-adsorbent interaction), so the presence of a desorption phenomenon is possible (e.g., FeCl₃ adsorption). Moreover, the adsorbed layer can interact with other adsorbed layers and can act as a new template for the adsorption of the following layer (multilayer adsorption mechanism) such as the case of InCl₃ in the present investigation.

4. Conclusion

In this work, the experimental QCM tool is used to control the adsorption of aluminum chloride, iron chloride, and indium chloride on porphyrins H₂TTPP and H₂TPP. By analyzing the experimental isotherms, the AlCl₃-H₂TTPP complex was found as the best adsorption system in terms of reproducibility since it showed the highest adsorbed quantities. Theoretically, statistical physical models were suggested for the analysis of the experimental results. The numerical investigation confirmed that the chloride ions contributed only in the adsorption of InCl₃ (double-layer adsorption). The iron chloride adsorption was described by a monolayer model that considers the lateral interactions of the ions indicating the lowest stability of the formed iron-porphyrin complex. The physicochemical parameters of these models gave interesting microscopic insights about the complexation of the two porphyrins. Indeed, it was found that the six adsorption processes were governed by a multi-interaction process ( $n$ is inferior to 1). The thermal agitation caused an increase of the number of occupied sites $P_{M}$ which indicated that some porphyrin sites contributed to the adsorption only at high temperature (endothermic process). The energetic study, through adsorption energy calculation, demonstrated that the adsorption of AlCl₃ on H₂TTPP is a chemisorption process involving covalent bonds.

Footnotes

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for funding this research through project number PNU-DRI-RI-20-016.

References

Fuchs

Weber

Kaufmann

Genotoxic potential of porphyrin type photosensitizers with particular emphasis on 5-aminolevulinic acid: implications for clinical photodynamic therapy

Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2000 28

5540517

4 537 548

10.1016/S0891-5849(99)00255-5

2-s2.0-0034652554

10719235

Simonneaux

Srour

Le Maux

Chevance

Carrie

Metalloporphyrin symmetry in chiral recognition and enantioselective catalysis

Symmetry 2014 6

5540517

2 210 221

10.3390/sym6020210

2-s2.0-84898614132

Saha

Petrovic

A. G.

Dhamija

Berova

Rath

S. P.

Complexation of chiral zinc(II) porphyrin tweezer with achiral aliphatic diamines revisited: molecular dynamics, electronic CD, and ¹H NMR analysis

Inorganic Chemistry 2019 58

5540517

17 11420 11438

10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b00962

2-s2.0-85071615767

31411870

Miao

Xia

Lee

Y. M.

Nam

San

Mechanistic insights into the enantioselective epoxidation of olefins by bioinspired manganese complexes: role of carboxylic acid and nature of active oxidant

ACS Catalysis 2018 8

5540517

5 4528 4538

10.1021/acscatal.8b00874

2-s2.0-85046698719

Mullen

K. M.

Gunter

M. J.

Toward Multistation Rotaxanes Using Metalloporphyrin Coordination Templating

The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2008 73

5540517

9 3336 3350

10.1021/jo800276w

2-s2.0-43449108278

Guo

Corona

Ray

Nam

Heme and nonheme high-valent iron and manganese oxo cores in biological and abiological oxidation reactions

ACS Central Science 2019 5

5540517

1 13 28

10.1021/acscentsci.8b00698

2-s2.0-85058890249

30693322

Chaudhri

Cong

Bulbul

A. S.

Grover

Osterloh

W. R.

Fang

Sankar

Kadish

K. M.

Structural, photophysical, and electrochemical properties of doubly fused porphyrins and related fused chlorins

Inorganic Chemistry 2020 59

5540517

2 1481 1495

10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b03329

31889445

Liao

M. S.

Scheiner

Electronic structure and bonding in metal porphyrins, metal=Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn

The Journal of Chemical Physics 2002 117

5540517

1 205 219

10.1063/1.1480872

2-s2.0-0036640233

Badr

I. H. A.

Meyerhoff

M. E.

Highly selective optical fluoride ion sensor with submicromolar detection limit based on aluminum(III) octaethylporphyrin in thin polymeric film

Journal of the American Chemical Society 2005 127

5540517

15 5318 5319

10.1021/ja0500153

2-s2.0-17644392399

15826159

10.

Zhang

Duan

Qian

Zhang

Guo

Ding

Polymeric membrane fluoride-selective electrodes using Lewis acidic organo-antimony(V) compounds as ionophores

ACS Sensors 2020 5

5540517

11 3465 3473

10.1021/acssensors.0c01481

33112603

11.

Kumar

P. P.

Maiya

B. G.

Aluminium(iii) porphyrin based dimers and trimers: synthesis, spectroscopy and photochemistry

New Journal of Chemistry 2003 27

5540517

3 619 625

10.1039/b208339f

2-s2.0-0037351888

12.

Qin

Guo

Sheng

Wang

An aluminum porphyrin complex with high activity and selectivity for cyclic carbonate synthesis

Green Chemistry 2015 17

5540517

5 2853 2858

10.1039/C4GC02310B

2-s2.0-84929378651

13.

Ojima

Catalytic Asymmetric Synthesis 2000

New York, NY, USA

Wiley-VCH

10.1002/0471721506

14.

Stulz

Scott

S. M.

Y. F.

Bond

A. D.

Teat

S. J.

Darling

S. L.

Feeder

Sanders

J. K. M.

Construction of multiporphyrin arrays using ruthenium and rhodium coordination to phosphines

Inorganic Chemistry 2003 42

5540517

20 6564 6574

10.1021/ic034699w

2-s2.0-0141454932

14514334

15.

Richeter

Thion

van der Lee

Leclercq

Synthesis, structural characterization and properties of aluminum (III) meso-tetraphenylporphyrin complexes axially bonded to phosphinate anions

Inorganic Chemistry 2006 45

5540517

10049 10051

10.1021/ic0617801

2-s2.0-33846143147

16.

Liu

Pang

Liu

Zhang

Mao

Qiu

Yang

Wang

Orderly porous covalent organic frameworks-based materials: superior adsorbents for pollutants removal from aqueous solutions

The Innovation 2021 2

5540517

1, article 100076

10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100076

17.

Alharbi

N. S.

Hayat

Rabah

S. O.

Alsaedi

Zhuang

Wang

Efficient elimination of environmental pollutants through sorption-reduction and photocatalytic degradation using nanomaterials

Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering 2020 14

5540517

6 1124 1135

10.1007/s11705-020-1923-z

18.

Hong

H. G.

Mallouk

T. E.

Electrochemical measurements of electron transfer rates through zirconium 1,2-ethanediylbis(phosphonate) multilayer films on gold electrodes

Langmuir 1991 7

5540517

10 2362 2369

10.1021/la00058a065

2-s2.0-0026238504

19.

Cho

S. H.

Nguyen

S. T.

Hupp

J. T.

Manganese porphyrin multilayer films assembled on ITO electrodes via zirconium phosphonate chemistry: chemical and electrochemical catalytic oxidation activity

Topics in Catalysis 2005 34

5540517

1-4 101 107

10.1007/s11244-005-3803-7

2-s2.0-18744388032

20.

de Ruiter

Lahav

van der Boom

M. E.

Pyridine coordination chemistry for molecular assemblies on surfaces

Accounts of Chemical Research 2014 47

5540517

12 3407 3416

10.1021/ar500112b

2-s2.0-84918536683

25350402

21.

Wang

Mousavi

Hauser

P. J.

Oxenham

Grant

C. S.

Quartz crystal microbalance in elevated temperature viscous liquids: temperature effect compensation and lubricant degradation monitoring

Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2005 268

5540517

1-3 30 39

10.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.05.075

2-s2.0-26844489015

22.

Langmuir

The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum

Journal of the American Chemical Society 1918 40

5540517

9 1361 1403

10.1021/ja02242a004

2-s2.0-0007601535

23.

Freundlich

F. M. H.

Over the adsorption in solution

The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1906 57

5540517

385 471

24.

Ben Yahia

Yahia

M. B.

Aouaini

Knani

Al-Ghamdi

Almogait

E. S.

Lamine

A. B.

Adsorption of sodium and lithium ions onto helicenes molecules: experiments and phenomenological modeling

Journal of Molecular Liquids 2019 288, article 110988

5540517

10.1016/j.molliq.2019.110998

2-s2.0-85067939923

25.

Knani

Khalifa

Ben Yahia

Aouaini

Tounsi

Statistical physics study of the interaction of the 5, 10, 15, 20-tetrakis (4-tolylphenyl) porphyrin (H₂TTPP) with magnesium ion: new microscopic interpretations

Arabian Journal of Chemistry 2020 13

5540517

2 4374 4385

10.1016/j.arabjc.2019.08.010

2-s2.0-85072074024

26.

Nakbi

Bouzid

Ayachi

Aouaini

Lamine

A. B.

Investigation of caffeine taste mechanism through a statistical physics modeling of caffeine dose-taste response curve by a biological putative caffeine adsorption process in electrophysiological response

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2019 147

5540517

70 85

10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.12.013

27.

Adler

A. D.

Longo

F. R.

Finarelli

J. D.

Goldmacher

Assour

Korakoff

A simplified synthesis for meso-tetraphenylporphine

The Journal of Organic Chemistry 1967 32

5540517

2 476 476

10.1021/jo01288a053

2-s2.0-33947334208

28.

Buck

Lindner

Kutner

Inzelt

Piezoelectric chemical sensors (IUPAC technical report)

Pure and Applied Chemistry 2004 76

5540517

6 1139 1160

10.1351/pac200476061139

2-s2.0-4043153353

29.

O’Sullivan

C. K.

Guilbault

G. G.

Commercial quartz crystal microbalances theory and applications

Biosensors and Bioelectronics 1999 14

5540517

8-9 663 670

10.1016/S0956-5663(99)00040-8

2-s2.0-0032704734

30.

Sauerbrey

Verwendung von schwingquarzen zur wägung dünner schichten und zur mikrowägung

Zeitschrift für Physik 1959 155

5540517

2 206 222

10.1007/BF01337937

2-s2.0-84951279351

31.

Nomura

Okuhara

Frequency shifts of piezoelectric quartz crystals immersed in organic liquids

Analytica Chimica Acta 1982 142

5540517

281 284

10.1016/S0003-2670(01)95290-0

2-s2.0-25744473797

32.

Tsionsky

Gileadi

Use of the quartz crystal microbalance for the study of adsorption from the gas phase

Langmuir 1994 10

5540517

8 2830 2835

10.1021/la00020a053

2-s2.0-0028482994

33.

Kanazawa

K. K.

Gordon

J. G.

Frequency of a quartz microbalance in contact with liquid

Analytical Chemistry 1985 57

5540517

8 1770 1771

10.1021/ac00285a062

2-s2.0-0347816738

34.

Urbakh

Daikhin

Influence of the surface morphology on the quartz crystal microbalance response in a fluid

Langmuir 1994 10

5540517

8 2836 2841

10.1021/la00020a054

2-s2.0-0028483589

35.

Malinowska

Meyerhoff

M. E.

Role of axial ligation on potentiometric response of Co(III) tetraphenylporphyrin-doped polymeric membranes to nitrite ions

Analytica Chimica Acta 1995 300

5540517

1-3 33 43

10.1016/0003-2670(94)00407-D

2-s2.0-0028797922

36.

Ben Yahia

Knani

Hsan

H. B. L.

Yahia

M. B.

Nasri

Lamine

A. B.

Statistical studies of adsorption isotherms of iron nitrate and iron chloride on a thin layer of porphyrin

Journal of Molecular Liquids 2017 248

5540517

235 245

10.1016/j.molliq.2017.10.073

2-s2.0-85031772473

37.

Ben Lamine

Bouazra

Application of statistical thermodynamics to the olfaction mechanism

Chemical Senses 1997 22

5540517

1 67 75

10.1093/chemse/22.1.67

2-s2.0-0030943172

9056086

38.

Knani

Mathlouthi

Ben Lamine

Modeling of the psychophysical response-curves using the grand canonical ensemble in statistical physics

Food Biophysics 2007 2

5540517

4 183 192

10.1007/s11483-007-9042-7

2-s2.0-36549089573

39.

Sellaoui

Soetaredjo

E. F.

Ismadji

Petriciolet

B. A.

Belver

Bedia

Lamine

B. A.

Erto

Insights on the statistical physics modeling of the adsorption of Cd²⁺ and Pb²⁺ ions on bentonite-chitosan composite in single and binary systems

Chemical Engineering Journal 2018 354

5540517

569 576

10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.073

2-s2.0-85051405986

40.

Alyousef

Aouaini

Ben Yahia

New insights on physico-chemical investigation of water adsorption isotherm into seed of dates using statistical physics treatment: pore size and energy distributions

Journal of Molecular Liquids 2020 298, article 112041

5540517

10.1016/j.molliq.2019.112041

41.

Diu

Guthmann

Lederer

Roulet

Physique Statistique 1989

Paris

Hermann

42.

Bouzid

Zhu

Geoff

D. M.

Ben Lamine

New insight in adsorption of pyridine on the two modified adsorbents types MN200 and MN500 by means of grand canonical ensemble

Journal of Molecular Liquids 2018 263

5540517

413 421

10.1016/j.molliq.2018.05.008

2-s2.0-85047099231

43.

Prola

L. D. T.

Acayanka

Lima

E. C.

Umpierres

C. S.

Vaghetti

J. C. P.

Santos

W. O.

Laminsi

Djifon

P. T.

Comparison of Jatropha curcas shells in natural form and treated by non-thermal plasma as biosorbents for removal of reactive red 120 textile dye from aqueous solution

Industrial Crops and Products 2013 46

5540517

328 340

10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.02.018

2-s2.0-84875040741

44.

Marquardt

D. W.

An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters

Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 1963 11

5540517

2 431 441

10.1137/0111030

45.

Hadi

Samarghandi

M. R.

McKay

Equilibrium two-parameter isotherms of acid dyes sorption by activated carbons: study of residual errors

Chemical Engineering Journal 2010 160

5540517

2 408 416

10.1016/j.cej.2010.03.016

2-s2.0-77954814549

46.

Rêgo

T. V.

Cadaval

T. R. S.

Jr. Dotto

G. L.

Pinto

L. A. A.

Statistical optimization, interaction analysis and desorption studies for the azo dyes adsorption onto chitosan films

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2013 411

5540517

27 33

10.1016/j.jcis.2013.08.051

2-s2.0-84884403571

24112836

47.

Kapoor

Yang

R. T.

Correlation of equilibrium adsorption data of condensible vapours on porous adsorbents

Gas Separation and Purification 1989 3

5540517

4 187 192

10.1016/0950-4214(89)80004-0

2-s2.0-0000378045

48.

Aouaini

Knani

Ben Yahia

Bahloul

Kechaou

Ben Lamine

Application of statistical physics on the modeling of water vapor desorption isotherms

Drying Technology 2014 32

5540517

16 1905 1922

10.1080/07373937.2014.924131

2-s2.0-84908661269

49.

Yahia

M. B.

Aouaini

Yahia

Almogait

E. S.

Al-Ghamdi

Theoretical investigation of the chlorophyll nucleus adsorption monitored with quartz crystal microbalance technique: new insights on physicochemical properties

Journal of Molecular Liquids 2019 289, article 111188

5540517

10.1016/j.molliq.2019.111188

2-s2.0-85068135236

50.

Sun

C. L.

Wang

C. S.

Estimation on the intramolecular hydrogen-bonding energies in proteins and peptides by the analytic potential energy function

Journal of Molecular Structure 2010 956

5540517

1-3 38 43

10.1016/j.theochem.2010.06.020

2-s2.0-77955663394

51.

von Oepen

Kördel

Klein

Sorption of nonpolar and polar compounds to soils: processes, measurements and experience with the applicability of the modified OECD-guideline 106

Chemosphere 1991 22

5540517

3-4 285 304

10.1016/0045-6535(91)90318-8

2-s2.0-0025860419

52.

Yavorski

Detlaf

Aide mémoire de Physique 1975

France

Edition Mir-Mouscou, Le-Livre (SABLONS, France)