Determination of contact angle of microspheres by microscopy methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confocal microscopy technique was used for contact angle measurement of individual microspheres. Glass microspheres with diameter of 3-10 micrometers were used for this investigation (this size range for particles are most relevant to inhalation applications). A contact angle of 41/spl deg/ /spl plusmn/ 6/spl deg/ was calculated for these particles using different laser-scanned layers of the particle floating on the air-water interface when observed by confocal microscope. The ratio of the diameter for the cross section of the protruded area of the particle at the air-water interface to the actual diameter of the particle is used for contact angle measurements. The calculated contact angle of the glass particles was compared to that obtained from pendent drop method. For pendent drop, the apex of a water droplet with particles attached to it was observed from below. An inverted light microscope was used for observations. Contact angle can be measured using a simple geometrical relation and knowing the ratio of the diameter of cross section for protruded part of the particle from the droplet apex to the light colored ring around if (representing the particle diameter). A contact angle of 27/spl deg/ /spl plusmn/ 5/spl deg/ was found for particles by this method. The plausible reasons for discrepancy between the two methodologies are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".