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 13 C 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 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".