Recent experimental advances on hydrophobic interactions at solid/water and fluid/water interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrophobic effects play important roles in a wide range of natural phenomena and engineering processes such as coalescence of oil droplets in water, air flotation of mineral particles, and folding and assembly of proteins and biomembranes. In this work, the authors highlight recent experimental attempts to reveal the physical origin of hydrophobic effects by directly quantifying the hydrophobic interaction on both solid/water and fluid/water interfaces using state-of-art nanomechanical techniques such as surface forces apparatus and atomic force microscopy (AFM). For solid hydrophobic surfaces of different hydrophobicity, the range of hydrophobic interaction was reported to vary from ∼10 to >100 nm. With various characterization techniques, the very long-ranged attraction (>100 nm) has been demonstrated to be mainly attributed to nonhydrophobic interaction mechanisms such as pre-existing nanobubbles and molecular rearrangement. By ruling out these factors, intrinsic hydrophobic interaction was measured to follow an exponential law with decay length of 1-2 nm with effective range less than 20 nm. On the other hand, hydrophobic interaction measured at fluid interfaces using AFM droplet/bubble probe technique was found to decay with a much shorter length of ∼0.3 nm. This discrepancy of measured decay lengths is proposed to be attributed to inherent physical distinction between solid and fluid interfaces, which impacts the structure of interface-adjacent water molecules. Direct measurement of hydrophobic interaction on a broader range of interfaces and characterization of interfacial water molecular structure using spectroscopic techniques are anticipated to help unravel the origin of this rigidity-related mismatch of hydrophobic interaction and hold promise to uncover the physical nature of hydrophobic effects. With improved understanding of hydrophobic interaction, intrinsic interaction mechanisms of many biological and chemical pathways can be better elucidated, and novel devices/processes can be developed with capacity to modulate and control the hydrophobic effects from the molecular to the macroscopic scale.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".