Measurement and Prediction of the Phase Behavior of Wax−Solvent Mixtures: Significance of the Wax <i>Dis</i>appearance Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the phase behavior of wax−solvent mixtures below their liquidus temperature, particularly between the wax disappearance temperature (WDT, recorded while heating the mixture) and the wax appearance temperature (WAT, recorded while cooling the mixture). The prepared wax−solvent mixtures comprised 6−22 mass % of a paraffinic wax (C 20 −C 40, with the mean carbon number of 28) dissolved in n -hexadecane (C 16 ) and Norpar13 (a paraffinic solvent, C 11 −C 15 ). For these mixtures, the WAT values were lower than the WDT values by 3.2 ± 0.6 °C. Gas chromatograph analyses of the liquid phase, at temperatures between the WDT and the pour-point temperature, were used to calculate the wax solubility and the composition of the dissolved wax. At temperatures below the WDT, the wax solubility decreased with decreasing temperature, and the liquid-phase concentrations of C 20 −C 27 were higher than those in the whole wax and those of C 29 + were lower. The experimental data compared satisfactorily with predictions from an available UNIQUAC-based model for the liquidus temperature as well as for the composition of C 20 + constituents in the liquid phase. This study establishes that the WDT rather than the WAT is closer to the liquidus or saturation temperature of “waxy” mixtures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".