Size dependence of the solubility of nonpolar compounds in different solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At 25°C, plots of the standard Gibbs energy change associated with the solvation of noble gases and aliphatic hydrocarbons vs. the size of the solutes prove to be approximately linear with a negative slope for common organic solvents but not for water. In the latter case, the plot has a characteristic V-shape. The slope is negative for noble gases, methane, and ethane, but is positive for larger alkanes. This means that the solubility of nonpolar solutes increases with solute size in every solvent except water. The solvation thermodynamics of noble gases and aliphatic hydrocarbons in five solvents (water, ethanol, benzene, c-hexane, and n-hexane) are analyzed in detail by a general theory, which is rederived to avoid risky misunderstandings. The calculations are performed in the same manner for all solvents, using simple formulas where the physical reliability is well established and the results are consistent. The work of cavity creation increases with solute size in every solvent, but to a far greater extent in water. Additionally, the work to turn on the solutesolvent attractive interactions increases in magnitude with solute size in every solvent, but to a lesser extent in water. By combining these two factors a satisfactory explanation for experimental data obtained emerges. The microscopic origins of the difference between water and common organic solvents are discussed.Key words: solvation, excluded-volume effect, solutesolvent interactions, enthalpyentropy compensation, molecular size.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".