Formulation of ultralow interfacial tension systems using extended surfactants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inspired by the concept of lipophilic and hydrophilic linkers, extended surfactants have been proposed as highly desirable candidates for the formulation of microemulsions with high solubilization capacity and ultralow interfacial tension (IFT), especially for triglyceride oils. The defining characteristic of an extended surfactant is the presence of one or more intermediate‐polarity groups between the hydrophilic head and the hydrophobic tail. Currently only limited information exists on extended surfactants; such knowledge is especially relevant for cleaning and separation applications where the cost of the surfactant and environmental regulations prohibit the use of concentrated surfactant solutions. In this work, we examine surfactant formulations for a wide range of oils using dilute solutions of the extended surfactant classes sodium alkyl polypropyleneoxide sulfate (R‐(PO) x −SO 4 Na), and sodium alkyl polypropyleneoxide‐polyethyleneoxide sulfate (R‐(PO) y ‐(EO) z −SO 4 Na). The IFT of these systems was measured as a function of electrolyte and surfactant concentration for polar and nonpolar oils. The results show that these extended surfactant systems have low critical micelle concentrations (CMC) and critical microemulsion concentrations (CμC) compared with other surfactants. We also found that the unique structure of these extended surfactants allows them to achieve ultralow IFT with a wide range of oils, including highly hydrophobic oils (e.g., hexadecane), triolein, and vegetable oils, using only ppm levels of these extended surfactants. It was also found that the introduction of additional PO and EO groups in the extended surfactant yielded lower IFT and lower optimum salinity, both of which are desirable in most formulations. Based on the optimum formulation conditions, it was found that the triolein sample used in these experiments behaved as a very polar oil, and all other vegetable oils displayed very hydrophobic behavior. This unexpected triolein behavior is suspected to be due to uncharacterized impurities in the triolein sample, and will be further evaluated in future research.
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".