Lithium C<sub>1</sub>–C<sub>12</sub><i>n</i>-Alkanoates: Thermal Behavior from −30 °C to 600 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lithium C 1 –C 12 n -alkanoates (Li-carboxylates) were synthesized, and their thermal behavior was studied over the temperature range t /°C = (−30 to 600). Infrared and Raman spectroscopy indicated that the C 3 –C 12 Li-carboxylates exist in two different configurations and that these configurations persisted after melting. In both configurations the equivalence of the C–O bonds were retained. Evidence for covalent character of the Li–O bond was found only for lithium methanoate. Solid–solid phase transitions were observed for all C 1 –C 12 Li-carboxylates, with the exception of lithium butanoate, hexanoate, and octanoate. No liquid crystal phases were found for any of the C 1 –C 12 Li-carboxylates. These observations were consistent with literature. A previously unreported solid–solid transition at temperature t /°C = (41.3 ± 0.3) with enthalpy Δ H /kJ·kg –1 = (2.8 ± 0.1) was observed for lithium dodecanoate. The melting points of the C 1 –C 2 Li-carboxylates were t /°C = (272 and 283) respectively. For the other Li-carboxylates, the melting points decreased monotonically from t /°C = (331) for lithium propanoate, to t /°C = (227) for lithium dodecanoate. The experimental values for melting point temperature and enthalpy of melting were consistent with literature. Thermal decomposition produced lithium carbonate (Li 2 CO 3 ) as solid residue and took place at t /°C = (380 to 390) for C 1 –C 2 Li-carboxylates and t /°C = (450 to 485) for C 3 –C 12 Li-carboxylates.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".