Liquid–liquid phase separation in organic particles containing one and two organic species: importance of the average O : C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Recently, experimental studies have shown that liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) can occur in organic particles free of inorganic salts. Most of these studies used organic particles consisting of secondary organic materials generated in environmental chambers. To gain additional insight into LLPS in organic particles free of inorganic salts, we studied LLPS in organic particles consisting of one and two commercially available organic species. For particles containing one organic species, three out of the six particle types investigated underwent LLPS. In these cases, LLPS was observed when the O : C was ≤ 0.44 (but not always) and the relative humidity (RH) was between ∼ 97 % and ∼ 100 %. The mechanism of phase separation was likely nucleation and growth. For particles containing two organic species, 13 out of the 15 particle types investigated underwent LLPS. In these cases, LLPS was observed when the O : C was ≤ 0.58 (but not always) and mostly when the RH was between ∼ 90 % RH and ∼ 100 % RH. The mechanism of phase separation was likely spinodal decomposition. In almost all cases when LLPS was observed (for both one-component and two-component particles), the highest RH at which two liquids was observed was 100±2.0 %, which has important implications for the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) properties of these particles. These combined results provide additional evidence that LLPS needs to be considered when predicting the CCN properties of organic particles in the atmosphere.
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".