Influence of Film Composition on the Morphology, Mechanical Properties, and Surfactant Recovery of Phase-Separated Phospholipid-Perfluorinated Fatty Acid Mixed Monolayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monolayer surfactant films composed of a mixture of phospholipids and perfluorinated (or partially fluorinated) surfactants are of potential utility for applications in pulmonary lung surfactant-based therapies. As a simple, minimal model of such a lung surfactant system, binary mixed monolayer films composed of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC) and perfluorooctadecanoic acid (C18F) prepared on a simplified lung fluid mimic subphase (pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl) have been characterized in terms of mixing thermodynamics and compressibility (measured through π–A compression isotherms), film morphology (via atomic force, fluorescence, and Brewster angle microscopy), as well as spreading rate and hysteresis response to repeated expansion–contraction cycles for a variety of compositions of mixed films. Under all mixing conditions, films and their components were found to be completely immiscible and phase-separated, though there were significant changes in the aforementioned film properties as a function of composition. Of particular note was the existence of a maximum in the extent of immiscibility (characterized by ΔG(ex)(π) values) and enhanced surfactant recovery during hysteresis experiments at χ(C18F) ≥ 0.30. The latter was attributed to the relatively rapid respreading rate of the perfluorinated amphiphile in comparison with DPPC alone at the air–water interface, which enhances the performance of this mixture as a potential pulmonary lung surfactant. Further, monolayer film structure could be tracked dynamically as a function of compression at the air–water interface via Brewster angle microscopy, with the C18F component being preferentially squeezed out of the film with compression, but returning rapidly upon re-expansion. In general, addition of C18F to DPPC monolayers resulted in improvements to mechanical, structural, and respreading properties of the film, indicating the potential value of these compounds as additives to pulmonary lung surfactant formulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".