Comments concerning papers about cationic dyes sorption, published by Saeed et al. (2023), Tan et al. (2023) and Yıldız et al. (2023)

• Published in: Separation science and technology Vol. 59; no. 6-9; pp. 921 - 928
• Main Authors: Bollinger, Jean-Claude, Chu, Khim Hoong, Salvestrini, Stefano
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Taylor & Francis 12.04.2024; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Careers; Cationic dyes; Cations; Dyes; Errors; isotherm modeling; Kinetics; kinetics modeling; Scientific mistake; Sorbents; Sorption; thermodynamic parameters
• ISSN: 0149-6395; 1520-5754; 1520-5754
• DOI: 10.1080/01496395.2024.2349928

Recently, the three independent papers cited in the title were published in this journal, dealing with the sorption of cationic dyes on specially prepared solid sorbents. Although kinetics, isotherm and thermodynamics are three important components for the correct description of any sorption process, the authors of these original papers introduced several fundamental errors in these parts. Therefore, we present detailed analyses of these errors in the hope that this "Comment" paper will also be useful to other researchers (especially early career researchers) to avoid replicating such errors elsewhere in the future. Recently, three independent papers were published in this journal by Tan et al. (2023), Saeed et al. (2023), and Yıldız et al. (2023), all dealing with the sorption of cationic dyes on specially prepared solid sorbents. Although kinetics, isotherm and thermodynamics are important components for the correct description of any sorption process, several fundamental errors and inconsistencies have been identified. Therefore, we present detailed analyses of these errors in the hope that this paper will also be useful to other researchers (especially early career researchers) to avoid replicating such errors elsewhere in the future. Furthermore, the present authors emphasize that this paper is not intended to discredit the subject of the considered experimental studies, and they hope that these comments will be read in the spirit in which they are intended, i.e. as constructive criticism to produce better final scientific papers.