Tuning of the α‐Terthiophene Radical Cation Coupling Reaction Using Mixed Micelles with Varying Charge Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The photophysics and photochemistry of alpha-terthiophene (alphaT), compartmentalized in mixed nonionic/anionic micelles, have been investigated with focus on the influence of the micellar surface charge density on the formation of the radical coupling product alpha-hexathiophene (alphaH). By varying the ratio of nonionic-to-anionic surfactants, and assuming ideal mixing, the charge density of the mixed micelles was varied. From Poisson-Boltzmann calculations, performed using the cell model, the electrostatic potential and the counterion activity were estimated as a function of the distance from the micellar surface. Upon excitation, the triplet state of alphaT is formed, from which the alphaT radical cation can be formed by absorption of a second photon. The radical cation can form alphaH if it encounters another alphaT radical cation. Under the experimental conditions used, this implies that the alphaH formation only occurs if the compartmentalized radical cation is able to migrate from its host micelle to another micelle, either via the surrounding bulk or by fusion of two micelles followed by mixing of their contents before micellar fission. The formation yield of the radical cation depends on the charge density of the mixed micelle; a lower charge density, that is, an increased amount of nonionic surfactant, lowers the yield. The yield of the coupling product alphaH, however, does not follow the same trend. A maximum yield of alphaH is found at intermediate nonionic surfactant molar ratios. This behavior is understood in terms of the Poisson-Boltzmann simulation results and by comparing charge-density changes as a function of molar fraction with the changes in counterion activity. The alphaH yield is a result of the balance between an increased possibility of radical cation bulk migration and a lowered electrostatic stabilization of the radical.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".