MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395957120 · doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2024.119197

Effective density and packing of compacted soot aggregates

2024· article· en· W4395957120 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy A. Sipkens, Joel C. Corbin

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaTransport Canada
KeywordsSootCompactionMaterials scienceAggregate (composite)Sphere packingAtomic packing factorVolume (thermodynamics)MineralogyComposite materialThermodynamicsCombustionChemistryPhysicsCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mass concentration of soot aggregates is often estimated from mobility size distributions using a mobility-based effective density, ρeff. This ρeff changes with aggregate morphology. In particular, the ρeff of a soot core increases when it becomes compacted by the surface tension of condensing coatings, such as combustion-related vapours, secondary aerosols, and cloud water. The extent of this compaction is a function of coating volume, up to an asymptotic limit of complete compaction. While complete compaction has previously been shown to correspond to a universal, scale-invariant packing factor for sufficiently large aggregates, it has not previously been explicitly quantified. Here, we critically reanalyze multiple datasets compiled from the literature on the ρeff of completely compact soot. We show that, regardless of the coating material, soot aggregates generally become completely compacted following a 5-fold increase in volume. The final aggregate shape is more simply described by ρeff than by mobility diameter or shape factor. Below 140 nm diameter (about 20 aggregate monomers), the compacted ρeff obeys a power law; above 140 nm, it reaches a constant value of 651 ± 8 kg m–3. This ρeff is 3 times larger than that of freshly-produced soot at 140 nm. We provide a parameterization of the compacted ρeff for the estimation of soot mass concentration after coating, or, conversely, for use as a benchmark to estimate the extent of aggregate restructuring. Our parameterization can be easily adapted to other nanoparticle aggregates whose material density is known.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCarbonSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207