The effect of shear and oil/water ratio on the required hydrophile‐lipophile balance for emulsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Required hydrophile‐lipophile balance (HLB) values were examined in terms of the nature of kerosene‐water, both oil‐in‐water (O/W) and water‐in‐oil (W/O), emulsions formed using Span 80/Tween 80 surfactant blends. Both the nature of the emulsification method and the oil/water ratio were critical in determining the resulting emulsion type. Both high‐ and low‐shear conditions were investigated. Under high shear, low internal phase emulsions formed using the surfactant mixtures that corresponded to the required HLB values for emulsification involving kerosene (6 for W/O and 14 for O/W). However, at low shear, high internal phase (concentrated) emulsions resulted. Furthermore, depending on the oil/water ratio, some of the high internal phase emulsions were opposite to the type expected, given the HLB of the surfactant blend used. From these results, it appears that the emulsification technique (applied shear and oil/water ratio) used can be of greater importance in determining the final emulsion type than the HLB values of the surfactants themselves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".