A Critique of Asphaltene Fluorescence Decay and Depolarization-Based Claims about Molecular Weight and Molecular Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on experimental and theoretical data available from the literature, it is shown that the conclusions derived from measurements of fluorescence decay and depolarization kinetic times as reported in a series of papers over the past decade (Ralston, et al. Energy Fuels 1996, 10, 623–630; Groenzin, et al. J. Phys. Chem. A 1999, 103, 11237–11245; Groenzin, et al. Energy Fuels 2000, 14, 677–684; Buenzostro-Gonzales, et al. Energy Fuels 2001, 15, 972–979; Groenzin, H., et al. Energy Fuels 2003, 17, 498–503; Badre, S., et al. Fuel 2005, 85, 1–11 and references therein) are egregiously wrong. To start with, the decay time measurements were done with inappropriate instrumentation which resulted in misleading results. Misinterpretation of the results led to the mistaken conclusion that bichromophoric type molecules are absent from petroleum asphaltene and therefore the architecture of the asphaltene molecule features a single condensed cyclic core spiked with some alkyl chains, in spite of irrefutable chemical evidence to the contrary. It was further concluded that if the asphaltene core is a single condensed ring, then the fluorescence depolarization with rotational correlation time method is applicable for the molecular weight determination of asphaltene. This is definitely not so, since, regardless of any other considerations, asphaltene is a mixture of a plethora of different, unknown components, with unknown concentrations along with innumerable different, unknown and some known chromophores portraying widely different absorption coefficients, fluorescence quantum yields, and kinetic decay times. Consequently, asphaltene fluorescence is a highly complex function of the above attributes and as such it is a totally unsuitable property for its molecular weight determination. The injection of an incorrect, single condensed ring core architecture for asphaltene has caused some confusion in asphaltene chemistry that has now hopefully been settled.
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 | 0.029 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".