Electrical Conductivity of Concentrated Al<sub>2</sub>(SO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>3</sub>−MgSO<sub>4</sub>−H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> Aqueous Solutions up to 250 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extended mean spherical approximation (MSA) model was applied to previously published electrical conductivity data for H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O, Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O, and MgSO 4 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O solutions. It was found that the dominant ion pairs affecting solution conductivities are H 3 O + −HSO 4 -, Al 3+ −HSO 4 -, and Mg 2+ −HSO 4 - . Coefficients determining the effective radii of the H 3 O + −HSO 4 -, Al 3+ −HSO 4 -, and Mg 2+ −HSO 4 - ion pairs were obtained by regressing experimental data. With these coefficients, the conductivities of H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O and MgSO 4 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O solutions can be reproduced up to 250 °C with an average relative difference of less than 2%. For Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O solutions, this approach worked only between 225 and 250 °C because of insufficient speciation data at other temperatures. These coefficients were used to predict the electrical conductivities of mixed Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 −MgSO 4 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O solutions at temperatures between 225 and 250 °C. The difference between calculated values and experimental data was below 5%, which is good for engineering use. Finally, a previously suggested equal-change assumption was used to calculate the equivalent conductivity of H 3 O + at 250 °C, producing a 4% difference compared to that obtained from the MSA model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".