A comparison of diffusion coefficients for ternary mixed micelle solutions measured by macroscopic gradient and dynamic light scattering techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taylor dispersion is used to measure ternary mutual diffusion coefficients (D(ik)) for aqueous solutions of decylsulfobetaine (SB10) (1) + dodecylsulfobetaine (SB12) (2), SB10 (1) + SB14 (2), and SB12 (1) + SB14 (2) mixed zwitterionic micelles. Cross-coefficient D(21) for the coupled flow of surfactant 1 produced by a concentration gradient in surfactant 2 is relatively small for these solutions, but D(12) reaches values as large as the main D(ii) coefficients. The results are interpreted by using the equation D(ik) = partial differential(C(i)D(i))/ partial differentialC(k) to relate the ternary mutual diffusion coefficients to the concentration-weighted average diffusion coefficients D(i) of the micellar and free-monomer forms of the surfactants. The macroscopic-gradient Taylor measurements are compared with diffusion coefficients measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS), which monitors microscopic concentration fluctuations. At most compositions, the intensity autocorrelation function G(tau) is a single exponential decay in D((2)), the smaller eigenvalue of the mutual diffusion coefficient matrix. A contribution from D((1)) is identified at high solute fractions of surfactant 1. The DLS results are consistent with contributions to G(tau) from uncoupled fluctuations in the concentrations of eigencomponents defined as the linear combinations of surfactants 1 and 2 that diagonalize the D(ik) matrix. A procedure for the rapid and convenient DLS measurement of ternary mutual diffusion coefficients, including the cross-coefficients for coupled diffusion, is suggested, using the Onsager reciprocal relation together with the eigenvalues and pre-exponential factors from G(tau).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".