1-Propanol hydrate by IR spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mid-IR attenuated total reflectance (mid-IRATR) spectra of a series of 1-propanol and water mixtures were obtained. Factor analysis (FA) applied to spectra gave the spectra of three principal species and their abundance: pure water, pure propanol, and a 1-propanol hydrate (1:1). When compared to the pure solvents, the hydrate propanol bands were modified which indicated that the valence bonds were perturbed. The assignment of the hydrate IR bands was made by comparing them with those of pure 1-propanol and pure water. No monomer was observed which indicated that all species were associated. The simplest representation of the different associations is by groups of two on which an intermolecular bond (H-bond) can be placed. The exchange between the molecules can be represented by the following equation: (H2O···H2O) + (CH3CH2CH2OH···OHCH2CH2CH3) [Formula: see text] 2(CH3CH2CH2OH···OH2). The hydrate's formation constant (Kf) is 1.2 (±0.2). This value is less than the one expected from the association of freely moving molecules, indicating that the hydrophobic interactions of the 1-propanol aliphatic chains decrease the strength of the hydrogen bond between water and alcohol in the hydrate.Key words: IR spectroscopy, ATR spectroscopy, 1-propanol, liquid, aqueous solutions, eigenspectra, hydrate, factor analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".