Investigation of Surfactant-Polymer Interactions Using Rheology and Surface Tension Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions between surfactants and a drag-reducing polymer were investigated at a low polymer concentration of 500 ppm, using measurements of the rheology and surface activity of surfactant-polymer solutions. A well-known drag-reducing polymer (anionic sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) and five different surfactants (two anionic, two non-ionic, and one zwitterionic) were selected for the interaction studies. The surfactant-polymer solutions were shear thinning in nature, and they followed the power law model. The interaction between the surfactant and polymer had a strong effect on the consistency index of the solution and a marginal effect on the flow behavior index. The surface tension versus surfactant concentration plots were interpreted in terms of the interactions between surfactant and polymer. The critical aggregation concentration (CAC) of the surfactant was estimated based on the surface tension and rheological data. The CAC values of the same charge surfactants as that of the polymer were found to be significantly higher than other combinations of surfactant and polymer, such as non-ionic surfactant/anionic polymer, and zwitterionic surfactant/anionic polymer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".