MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168666670 · doi:10.1080/01932690701716119

Monomer Concentrations in Simple Micellar Systems from NMR Relaxation Times and C‐13 Chemical Shifts

2008· article· en· W2168666670 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Doyle, Maria K. Mullally, Trudy A. Taylor, Michael D. Wilson, D. Gerrard Marangoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dispersion Science and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University3M (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPulmonary surfactantMicelleCritical micelle concentrationMonomerBromideRelaxation (psychology)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Thermodynamics of micellizationChromatographyPhysical chemistryAqueous solutionInorganic chemistryPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The monomer concentrations for some simple micelle forming surfactants, octylammonium bromide (OTAB), sodium decyl sulphate, SDecS, and dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide (DTAB) were determined from the NMR‐paramagnetic relaxation enhancement experiment (the NMR‐PRE) on the H‐1 spin lattice relaxation times for the surfactant protons as a function of the surfactant concentration above and below the critical micelle concentration (cmc region). The NMR relaxation times, determined from the inversion recovery method, decrease steadily as the concentration of the surfactant is increased above the cmc value. A second, simple method is proposed whereby the p‐value of the surfactant in the micelle is determined from the two‐site model via extrapolation of the observed relaxation rate data to high concentrations. The p‐values and the calculated monomer concentrations are compared to each other and to those obtained using the mass‐action and phase separation models. In most cases, the monomer concentrations appear to remain constant at concentrations up to 2–3 times the cmc value, and then begin to decrease thereafter. These results are compared to the trends in monomer concentrations obtained from other NMR experiments in other surfactant systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dispersion Science and TechnologySame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207