The Interaction of Glymes with Surfactant Micelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The critical micelle concentrations (CMC) values and counterion dissociation (α values) have been determined for a number of mixed micellar systems consisting of two typical ionic surfactants and glycol ethers (glymes) as cosurfactants, namely diethylene glycol dimethyl ether, diethylene glycol diethyl ether, triethylene glycol dimethyl ether, and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether. Conductance experiments were used to determine the CMC and α values of the mixed micelles as a function of glyme concentration in the aqueous mixed solvent. Favorable interactions between sodium dodecyl sulfate micelles and glyme cosurfactants were deduced from the decreases in the CMC values and the large increase in the α values of these systems as a function of increasing glyme concentration in the mixed solvents. In contrast to the anionic surfactant/glyme systems, in general, there appeared to be little favorable interactions between the surfactant and glymes when micelles of the cationic surfactant dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide were formed in water/glyme solvent systems containing an increasing amount of the glymes. The interaction of glymes with the surfactant micelles was examined closely via 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) chemical shifts for both surfactant and glyme carbons; these chemical shifts changes were interpreted in terms of the distribution and the localization of the glymes in the aggregates. Finally, partition constants, determined from two‐dimensional diffusion‐oriented spectroscopy (2D‐DOSY) experiments, were used to calculate thermodynamic quantities of transfer of the glymes between the bulk phase and the self‐assembled aggregates. All these results are interpreted in terms of the key contributions that both the glyme ethoxylated groups and alkyl endgroups make to the hydrophobic interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".