Self-Aggregation of Alkyltrimethylammonium Bromides (C<sub>10</sub>-, C<sub>12</sub>-, C<sub>14</sub>-, and C<sub>16</sub>TAB) and Their Binary Mixtures in Aqueous Medium: A Critical and Comprehensive Assessment of Interfacial Behavior and Bulk Properties with Reference to Two Types of Micelle Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detailed interfacial adsorption and micellization behavior of pure and mixed alkyltrimethylammonium bromides (ATABs: C10-, C12-, C14-, and C16TAB) were studied using tensiometric, conductometric, fluorimetric, viscometric, and calorimetric methods. The critical micellar concentration (CMC), thermodynamics of adsorption and micellization, counterion binding, aggregation number, and micellar polarity were determined. It was observed that the studied 1:1 molar mixtures of C10-C12TAB, C10-C14TAB, and C10-C16TAB, and the mixtures C12-C14TAB and C12-C16TAB at different mole ratios produced two CMCs that were supported by the conductometric, calorimetric and viscometric methods. Compared to the first micelle, the second micelle condensed more counterions and produced a higher aggregation number, but their interior polarity states were the same. The surface excess, area minimum of the ATABs at the CMC and Gibbs free energy of adsorption were evaluated and compared. The ideality/nonideality states of the mixed micelles formed in solution were tested in the light of Clint and Rubingh's formalisms; the mixed systems were found to undergo moderate to weak synergistic interaction. The contributions of the terminal methyl group, the intermediate methylene groups, and the hydrophilic tetramethylammonium group toward the standard Gibbs free energy, enthalpy, and entropy of the micellization processes were deciphered and discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".