Thermochemical behavior of dissolved carboxylic acid solutes: Solubilities of 3-methylbenzoic acid and 4-chlorobenzoic acid in organic solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Abraham general solvation model is used to correlate the solubility behavior of 3-methylbenzoic acid and 4-chlorobenzoic acid in alcohol and ether solvents. The mathematical correlations take the form of [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] where CS and CW refer to the solute solubility in the organic solvent and water, respectively; CG is a gas-phase concentration; R2 is the solute excess molar refraction; Vx is the McGowan volume of the solute; ΣαH2 and ΣβH2 are measures of the solute hydrogen-bond acidity and hydrogen-bond basicity; πH2 denotes the solute dipolaritypolarizability descriptor; and L(16) is the solute gas-phase dimensionless Ostwald partition coefficient into hexadecane at 298 K. The remaining symbols in the above expressions are known solvent coefficients, which have been determined previously for a large number of gassolvent and watersolvent systems. The Abraham general solvation model was found to describe the experimental solubility data and published literature partitioning data of 3-methylbenzoic acid and 4-chlorobenzoic acid to within overall standard deviations of 0.079 log units and 0.085 log units, respectively. Key words: 3-methylbenzoic acid solubilities, 4-chlorobenzoic acid solubilities, alcohol solvents, partition coefficients, molecular solute descriptors, solubility predictions.
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".