Modeling Solubility of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds in Subcritical Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) are common environmental contaminants associated with oil spills and the incomplete combustion of organic materials. PAC solubility in water is a fundamental property for environmental studies, and modeling of these data improve the process of environmental risk assessment. In this study, seven models (UNIQUAC, local surface Guggenheim, NRTL, regular solution, Wilson, Van Laar, and a modified Van Laar model) for correlations and prediction of aqueous solubilities of 22 PACs were evaluated. The results using models based on Guggenheim’s method showed that the local surface Guggenheim model provided a better correlation than the UNIQUAC model. For the systems studied, the best correlations were obtained with NRTL, Van Laar, and modified Van Laar models with mean deviations of 17.1, 14.3, and 14.5%, respectively. The predicted solubilities using NRTL and modified Van Laar models provided mean deviations of 44.1 and 47.1%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed that the correlations using the NRTL model are slightly influenced by variations up to 20% of the triple-point temperature and molar enthalpy of fusion of the solute.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".