Fundamental Study of Emulsions Stabilized by Soft and Rigid Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two distinct uniform hybrid particles, with similar hydrodynamic diameters and comparable zeta potentials, were prepared by copolymerizing N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) and styrene. These particles differed in their styrene to NIPAM (S/N) mass ratios of 1 and 8 and are referred to as S/N 1 and S/N 8, respectively. Particle S/N 1 exhibited a typical behavior of soft particles; that is, the particles shrank in bulk aqueous solutions when the temperature was increased. As a result, S/N 1 particles were interfacially active. In contrast, particle S/N 8 appeared to be rigid in response to temperature changes. In this case, the particles showed a negligible interfacial activity. Interfacial shear rheology tests revealed the increased rigidity of the particle-stabilized film formed at the heptane-water interface by S/N 1 than S/N 8 particles. As a result, S/N 1 particles were shown to be better emulsion stabilizers and emulsify a larger amount of heptane, as compared with S/N 8 particles. The current investigation confirmed a better performance of emulsion stabilization by soft particles (S/N 1) than by rigid particles (S/N 8), reinforcing the importance of controlling softness or deformability of particles for the purpose of stabilizing emulsions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".