The Cloud Point of Alkyl Ethoxylates and Its Prediction with the Hydrophilic–Lipophilic Difference (HLD) Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrophobicity of surfactants has been described through different concepts used to guide the formulation of surfactant-water (SW) and surfactant-oil-water (SOW) systems. An integrated framework of hydrophobicity indicators could provide a complete tool for surfactant characterization, and insights on how their relationship may influence the overall phase behavior of the system. The hydrophilic-lipophilic difference (HLD) and the characteristic curvature (Cc) parameter, included in the HLD, have been shown to correlate with different hydrophobicity indicators including the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB), packing factor (Pf), phase inversion temperature (PIT), spontaneous curvature (Ho), surfactant partition (K(o-w)), and the critical micelle concentration (CMC). This work aims to investigate whether the HLD can further describe a concomitant hydrophobicity parameter, the cloud point (CP) of alkyl ethoxylates. After applying group contribution models to calculate the Cc of monodisperse (pure) nonionic alkyl ethoxylates, a linear correlation between the calculated Cc and the CP was observed for pure surfactants with 8 ethylene oxide (EO) units or less. Furthermore, using an apparent equivalent alkane carbon number (EACN) to represent the hydrophobicity of the micelle core, the HLD equation was capable of predicting cloud point temperatures of pure alkyl ethoxylates, typically within 5 °C. Polydisperse surfactants did not follow the linear CP-Cc correlation found for pure surfactants. After treating polydisperse samples using a liquid-liquid extraction procedure used to remove the most hydrophobic components in the mixture, the resulting treated surfactants fell in the correlation line of pure alkyl ethoxylates. A closer look at the partition behavior of these treated surfactants showed that their partition, Cc and cloud point are dominated by the most abundant ethoxymers in the treated surfactant. The HLD also predicted the cloud point depression of treated surfactants with increasing sodium chloride concentration. This work shows how the HLD framework could be extended to predict the behavior of SW 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".