Theoretical Approaches on the Synergistic Interaction between <scp>Double‐Headed</scp> Anionic Amino Acid‐Based Surfactants and Hexadecyltrimethylammonium Bromide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theoretical investigations on the micellization of mixtures of (i) amino acid‐based anionic surfactants [AAS: N ‐dodecyl derivatives of aminomalonate, −aspartate, and ‐glutamate] and (ii) hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HTAB), were carried out at different mole ratios. Variation in the theoretical values of critical micelle concentration ( CMC ), mole fraction of surfactants in the micellar phase ( X ), at the interface ( X σ ), interaction parameters at the bulk/interface ( β R /β σ ), ideality/nonideality of the mixing processes, and activity coefficients ( f ) were evaluated using Rubingh, Rosen, Motomora, and Sarmoria‐Puvvada‐Blankschtein models. CMC values significantly deviate from the theroretically calculated values, indicating associative interaction. With increasing mole fraction of AAS ( α AAS ), the magnitude of the ( β R /β σ ) values gradually decreased, considered to attributable to hydrophobic interactions. With increasing α AAS , the micellar mole fraction of HTAB ( X 2 ) decreased insignificantly and X 2 values were higher than those compared to AAS for all combinations, due to the dominance of HTAB in micelles. Micellar mole fraction at the ideal state of AAS ( ) differed from micellar mole fraction of AAS ( X 1 ), indicating nonideality in the mixed micellization process. Gibbs free energy of micellization ( ∆G m ) values are more negative than the free energy of micellization for ideal mixing ( ), indicating the micellization process is spontaneous. With increasing α AAS , the enthalpy of micellization (Δ H m ) and entropy of micellization (Δ S m ) values gradually increased, which indicates micellization is exothermic. The different physicochemical parameters of the mixed micelles are correlated with the variation in the spacer length between the two carboxylate groups of AAS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".