Interfacial Activity of Bitumen Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The interfacial activity of asphaltenes, naphthenic acids, and naphthenates has been amply studied in the literature, as they are involved in the formation and stabilization of bitumen and heavy crude oil emulsions. While most of the literature evaluates one component at a time, in this work these bitumen components were separated one at a time from Athabasca bitumen, and the surface activity of the resulting fraction was evaluated as a function of pH, solvent aromaticity (heptane/toluene mixtures, known as heptol, at volume ratios 50/50 and 80/20), and temperature for selected systems. The interfacial activity was evaluated in two ways: via dynamic interfacial tension during adsorption on a bitumen drop of constant volume, and via dynamic interfacial tension during drop volume cycling. The adsorption data were interpreted using a model that combined multicomponent adsorption kinetics inspired by Langmuir–Freundlich kinetics with the Fainerman surface equation of state. The volume cycling experiments were interpreted using the compression relaxation model, which segregates adsorption/relaxation effects from elastic phenomena at interfaces. Overall, the adsorption data confirmed that naphthenic acids are the fastest adsorbing species that tend to dominate the interface, but that asphaltenes adsorb, almost irreversibly, at longer time scales and likely forming a sublayer previously proposed in the literature. The dilatational elasticity of the interface seems to be highly influenced by that asphaltene sublayer, which softens at high pH at room temperature, or at 80 °C independently of the pH of the system.
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".