## 3 Results and Discussion
### Adsorption of 4-Ethylphenol and 4-Ethylguaiacol
#### 3.2.4 Joint Removal of 4-Ethylphenol and 4-Ethylguaiacol from Like-Wine Solutions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **System** & **n\({}_{\text{max}}\)** & **n\({}_{\text{mL}}\)** & **K\({}_{\text{L}}\)** & **K\({}_{\text{F}}\)** & **n\({}_{\text{F}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Panreac \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{isolated} & 4-EG & 1.91 & 1.77 & 49.6 & 1.98 & 6.09 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.85 & 1.99 & 9.1 & 1.92 & 4.25 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.27 & 1.20 & 41.3 & 1.34 & 5.67 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.73 & 0.64 & 104.2 & 0.71 & 8.53 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.21 & 1.38 & 7.8 & 1.29 & 5.07 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.16 & 1.29 & 8.8 & 1.21 & 5.0 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 0.89 & 0.86 & 23.6 & 0.92 & 5.98 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.55 & 0.58 & 21.8 & 0.56 & 9.86 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Merck \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{isolated} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} System \\ \end{tabular} } & n\({}_{\text{max}}\) & n\({}_{\text{mL}}\) & K\({}_{\text{L}}\) & K\({}_{\text{F}}\) & n\({}_{\text{F}}\) \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 2.02 & 1.73 & 100 & 2.18 & 4.28 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.59 & 1.58 & 77.9 & 1.68 & 8.31 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.40 & 1.19 & 24.7 & 1.41 & 3.24 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.79 & 0.64 & 83.5 & 0.69 & 8.55 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.06 & 1.16 & 12.6 & 1.33 & 8.32 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.96 & 0.95 & 10.5 & 1.25 & 3.32 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 0.85 & 0.83 & 25.6 & 0.93 & 4.56 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.58 & 0.56 & 24.5 & 0.58 & 6.34 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Merck- \\ NaOH-2.5 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{isolated} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} System \\ \end{tabular} } & n\({}_{\text{max}}\) & n\({}_{\text{mL}}\) & K\({}_{\text{L}}\) & K\({}_{\text{F}}\) & n\({}_{\text{F}}\) \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.45 & 1.50 & 41.1 & 1.60 & 7.88 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.70 & 1.90 & 33.1 & 2.86 & 2.15 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.16 & 1.38 & 11.5 & 2.44 & 4.07 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.07 & 1.25 & 5.41 & 1.29 & 7.12 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Merck- \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{isolated} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} System \\ \end{tabular} } & n\({}_{\text{max}}\) & n\({}_{\text{mL}}\) & K\({}_{\text{L}}\) & K\({}_{\text{F}}\) & n\({}_{\text{F}}\) \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.51 & 1.20 & 15.1 & 1.41 & 3.26 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 1.28 & 1.16 & 16.1 & 1.28 & 2.93 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 1.06 & 0.83 & 42.7 & 1.02 & 4.02 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.49 & 0.47 & 80.1 & 0.46 & 9.63 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 0.60 & 0.81 & 3.6 & 0.66 & 6.23 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.53 & 0.69 & 3.2 & 0.54 & 2.51 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EG & 0.77 & 0.72 & 13.8 & 0.78 & 3.55 \\ \cline{3-7}  & & 4-EP & 0.41 & 0.35 & 18.5 & 0.39 & 4.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Adsorption isotherm parameters of 4-EP and 4-EG onto different ACs under different experimental conditions. n\({}_{\text{max}}\)—maximum adsorption capacity, taken directly from the isotherm (mmol g\({}^{-1}\)), n\({}_{\text{mL}}\)—monolayer capacity (mmol g\({}^{-1}\)), K\({}_{\text{L}}\)—Langmuir constant (mmol g\({}^{-1}\)) K\({}_{\text{F}}\) (mmol g\({}^{-1}\) (dm\({}^{3}\) mmol\({}^{-1}\))\({}^{1/n}_{\text{F}}\)) and n\({}_{\text{F}}\)—are constant and exponent of Freundlich. data presented in Table 4, it is possible to conclude that the affinity between both phenolic compounds and the ACs surface has changed. The presence of 13% \(v/v\) of ethanol promotes a decrease in the affinity between each compound and the ACs. When 4-EP and 4-EG were present in the same solution, the interaction between 4-EP and the ACs surface seemed to strengthen compared with its affinity when it was alone in the solution. Surprisingly, when 4-EP and 4-EG were present in the same solution, with 13% \(v/v\) of ethanol, an increase in the surface affinity was noticed with both compounds. The data included in Table 4 attest to a significant increase in the K\({}_{\rm L}\) values, which agrees with the increase in the interactions between adsorbent and adsorbate.