MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958463382 · doi:10.1002/jsde.12322

Formulating Nonionic Detergents <i>via</i> the Integrated Free Energy Model

2019· article· en· W2958463382 on OpenAlexafffund
Américo Boza Troncoso, Edgar Acosta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surfactants and Detergents · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryPulmonary surfactantMicelleWork (physics)Phase (matter)HexadecanePhase inversionAlkylThermodynamicsChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyOrganic chemistryAqueous solution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work explores the optimum detergency conditions of alkyl ethoxylate (C X EO Y ) surfactants with the integrated free energy model (IFEM). IFEM is a molecular thermodynamic model that calculates the free energy of formation of oil‐swollen spherical micelles, with a core solubilization radius Ro, using surfactants from empty (oil‐free) micelles and oil molecules from a continuous oil phase. The described geometry allows for rapid calculations, using a personal laptop (3.4 GHz processor), where each solubilization energy profile (free energy vs . Ro curve) can be solved in 5 min or less. While previous work showed quantitative agreement between IFEM predictions and experimental solubilization of alkanes in C X EO Y micelles, this work explores the possibility of using IFEM as a tool in surfactant selection. Experimental work has shown that detergency improved when operating near the phase inversion temperature (PIT) of the surfactant‐hexadecane system. The IFEM simulations in this work show, for the first time, that IFEM can be used to predict the PIT of surfactant‐oil systems, and that the surfactants selected via this method are consistent with the selection guided by experimental observations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surfactants and DetergentsSame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207