Rheological Assessment of Oil-Xanthan Emulsions in Terms of Complex, Storage, and Loss Moduli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental assessment was carried out to study the viscoelastic performance of crude oil-xanthan emulsions employing a RheoStress RS100 rheometer. Crude oil with a concentration range of 0−75% by volume was used to prepare the oil-gum emulsions. Two xanthan gums of Sigma and Kelzan were added in the emulsions with concentration ranges of 0−104 ppm. The linear viscoelastic ranges of all the tested oil-gum emulsions were found in the range of 0.1−10 Pa. Thus, the experimental tests were completed within the linear viscoelastic range of 1 Pa. The complex modulus increased gradually and steadily with frequency and gum concentration for all the examined emulsions. The addition of crude oil into the lighter xanthan concentration of <103 ppm provided almost the same behavior as the xanthan solution, whereas the presence of crude oil within the higher xanthan concentrations significantly stimulated the measured values of the complex modulus. For lower gum concentrations of up to 1000 ppm, oil concentration displayed no effect on both the storage and loss moduli, whereas for gum concentrations higher than 1000 ppm, both moduli increased gradually with crude oil concentration.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".