Mass-Action Model Analysis of the Apparent Molar Volume and Heat Capacity of Pluronics in Water and Liposome Suspensions at 25 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pluronics are block copolymers composed of a central block of polypropylene oxide and two side chains of polyethylene oxide. They are used in water to generate aggregates and gels or added to phospholipid suspensions to prepare microparticles for drug delivery applications. The structure of these systems has been widely investigated. However, little is known about the mechanisms leading to these structures. This investigation compares the apparent molar volumes and heat capacities of Pluronics F38, F108, F127, P85, P104, and P103 at 25 °C in water and in the presence of lecithin liposomes. The changes in molar volumes, heat capacities, and enthalpies generated by a mass-action model are in good agreement with the loss of hydrophobic hydration of the polypropylene oxide central block of the Pluronics. However, the molecularity of the endothermic transitions is much smaller than the aggregation numbers reported in the literature for the same systems. It is suggested that Pluronics go through dehydration of their central block to form unimolecular or small entities having a hydrophobic polypropylene oxide core. In water, these entities would assemble athermally to form larger aggregates. In the presence of liposomes, they would be transferred into the hydrophobic lecithin bilayers of the liposomes. Light transmission experiments suggest that the liposome suspensions are significantly altered only when the added Pluronics are in the dehydrated state.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".