Flexible conformation in organic matter coatings: An hypothesis about soil water repellency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some soils develop severe water repellency several years or decades following oil contamination. We previously reported that soil water repellency is completely eliminated by extraction with amphiphilic solvents, but barely reduced by extraction with nonpolar solvents. We report here on solvent-induced reversible soil water repellency. Our results indicate that: (i) water repellency is completely eliminated following extraction with amphiphilic solvent, but partially restored following subsequent exposure to nonpolar, non-H-bonding solvent; (ii) extraction with nonpolar, non-H-bonding solvent generates water repellency in readily wettable control wettable soils, but not in pristine wettable soils, and (iii) repeated sequential extractions alternating between amphiphilic and nonpolar, non-H-bonding solvent increase extractable material and reduce the magnitude of solvent-induced soil water repellency with time.We attribute reversible soil water repellency to solvent-induced changes in the conformation of causative agents of soil water repellency. Recent literature reports on the structural flexibility of "insoluble" organic macromolecules are discussed for supporting evidence. We propose that exposure to nonpolar, non-H-bonding solvents induces stretching of surface-exposed, nonpolar moieties (i.e. alkyl chains), whereas exposure to polar, H-bonding solvents induces their coiling. These solvent-induced conformational changes are retained upon solvent removal. Our results indicate that the wettability of oil-contaminated soils depends on both the interfacial conformation and the fractional coverage of their surface-exposed nonpolar moieties. Key words: Soil water repellency, crude oil, hydrophobic soil, conformational flexibility, swelling, solvents
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) | 0.001 | 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".