MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967512578 · doi:10.1021/je000363e

Ternary Mutual Diffusion Coefficients and Critical Micelle Concentrations of Aqueous Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate + Lithium Dodecyl Sulfate Solutions at 25 °C

2001· article· en· W1967512578 on OpenAlexaff
Derek G. Leaist, Salma M. Abdu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAqueous solutionTernary operationSodium dodecyl sulfatePulmonary surfactantMicelleDiffusionMole fractionInorganic chemistryCritical micelle concentrationCounterionTernary numeral systemAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPhysical chemistryThermodynamicsIonOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ternary mutual diffusion coefficients ( D ik ) are reported for aqueous sodium dodecyl sulfate (NaDS) + lithium dodecyl sulfate (LiDS) solutions at 25 °C and (0.020 or 0.040) mol·dm - 3 total surfactant. The main diffusion coefficient of each surfactant increases significantly with decreasing solute fraction, and each mole of diffusing surfactant countertransports up to 0.8 mol of the other surfactant. The results are interpreted by considering the limiting cases of diffusion in (a) solutions of NaDS micelles containing traces of LiDS with the counterion exchange equilibrium Li + + (Na q DS n ) q - n ⇌ Na + + (LiNa q - 1 DS n ) q - n and (b) solutions of LiDS micelles containing traces of NaDS with Na + + (Li q DS n ) q - n ⇌ Li + + (NaLi q - 1 DS n ) q - n . At fixed total surfactant concentration, the measured D ik coefficients are closely approximated by a simple linear interpolation of the limiting D ik values against solute fraction. Binary mutual diffusion coefficients for aqueous LiDS solutions and critical micelle concentrations for ternary aqueous NaDS + LiDS solutions are also reported.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207