MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752888675 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.7b08050

Water Evaporation from Acoustically Levitated Aqueous Solution Droplets

2017· article· en· W2752888675 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Combe, D. J. Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEvaporationAqueous solutionChemistryAmmonium sulfateRelative humiditySalt (chemistry)Vapor pressureHumidityThermodynamicsChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a systematic study of the effect of solutes on the evaporation rate of acoustically levitated aqueous solution droplets by suspending individual droplets in a zero-relative humidity environment and measuring their size as a function of time. The ratios of the early time evaporation rates of six simple salts (NaCl, NaBr, NaNO 3, KCl, MgCl 2, CaCl 2 ) and malonic acid to that of water are in excellent agreement with predictions made by modifying the Maxwell equation to include the time-dependent water activity of the evaporating aqueous salt solution droplets. However, the early time evaporation rates of three ammonium salt solutions (NH 4 Cl, NH 4 NO 3, (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ) are not significantly different from the evaporation rate of pure water. This finding is in accord with a previous report that ammonium sulfate does not depress the evaporation rate of its solutions, despite reducing its water vapor pressure, perhaps due to specific surface effects. At longer evaporation times, as the droplets approach crystallization, all but one (MgCl 2 ) of the solution evaporation rates are well described by the modified Maxwell equation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207