Diffusion coefficients of organic molecules in sucrose–water solutions and comparison with Stokes–Einstein predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The diffusion coefficients of organic species in secondary organic aerosol (SOA) particles are needed to predict the growth and reactivity of these particles in the atmosphere. Previously, viscosity measurements, along with the Stokes–Einstein relation, have been used to estimate the diffusion rates of organics within SOA particles or proxies of SOA particles. To test the Stokes–Einstein relation, we have measured the diffusion coefficients of three fluorescent organic dyes (fluorescein, rhodamine 6G and calcein) within sucrose–water solutions with varying water activity. Sucrose–water solutions were used as a proxy for SOA material found in the atmosphere. Diffusion coefficients were measured using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. For the three dyes studied, the diffusion coefficients vary by 4–5 orders of magnitude as the water activity varied from 0.38 to 0.80, illustrating the sensitivity of the diffusion coefficients to the water content in the matrix. At the lowest water activity studied (0.38), the average diffusion coefficients were 1.9 × 10−13, 1.5 × 10−14 and 7.7 × 10−14 cm2 s−1 for fluorescein, rhodamine 6G and calcein, respectively. The measured diffusion coefficients were compared with predictions made using literature viscosities and the Stokes–Einstein relation. We found that at water activity ≥ 0.6 (which corresponds to a viscosity of ≤ 360 Pa s and Tg∕T ≤ 0.81), predicted diffusion rates agreed with measured diffusion rates within the experimental uncertainty (Tg represents the glass transition temperature and T is the temperature of the measurements). When the water activity was 0.38 (which corresponds to a viscosity of 3.3 × 106 Pa s and a Tg∕T of 0.94), the Stokes–Einstein relation underpredicted the diffusion coefficients of fluorescein, rhodamine 6G and calcein by a factor of 118 (minimum of 10 and maximum of 977), a factor of 17 (minimum of 3 and maximum of 104) and a factor of 70 (minimum of 8 and maximum of 494), respectively. This disagreement is significantly smaller than the disagreement observed when comparing measured and predicted diffusion coefficients of water in sucrose–water mixtures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".