Studies on Binary and Ternary Amphiphile Combinations of Tetradecyltrimethylammonium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>TAB), Tetradecyltriphenylphosphonium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>TPB), and Tetradecylpyridinium Bromide (C<sub>14</sub>PB). A Critical Analysis of Their Interfacial and Bulk Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed surfactants play a promising role in surface chemical applications. In this study, interfacial and bulk behaviors of binary and ternary combinations of tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (C(14)TAB), tetradecyltriphenylphosphonium bromide (C(14)TPB), and tetradecylpyridinium bromide (C(14)PB) have been examined in detail using the methods of tensiometry, conductometry, fluorimetry, and microcalorimetry. The state of micellar aggregation, amphiphile composition in the micelle, extent of counterion binding by the micelle, and interaction among the surfactant monomers in the binary and ternary combinations have been quantitatively assessed in the light of the regular solution theories of Rubingh and that of Rubingh and Holland. The monomer packing in the micelles and their expected shapes have also been estimated from topological considerations. Conceptual rationalization of results has been presented together with associated energetics of the interfacial adsorption and self-aggregation in the bulk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".