Role of heads and tails on tetrahydrofuran- and dimethyl sulfoxide-water separation by glycerol and sucrose esters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tetrahydrofuran (THF) and dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) are miscible in water due to hydrogen (H) bonding. Amphiphilic glycerol and sucrose esters with a different number of tails and heads separate them, depending on the organic solvent concentration. Separation is worse in solutions where amphiphiles are most soluble. Separation occurs due to interactions between the amphiphiles and either organic solvents or water, as shown by attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Separation is best with glycerol esters with more heads and tails. Multiple tails hamper interactions between glycerol ester heads, thereby facilitating interactions with organic solvents or water to promote solvent–water separation. THF interacts with the glycerol ester tails, while water H bonds with the glycerol ester heads, as indicated by activity coefficients estimated with conductor-like screening model for real solvents. In THF, amphiphiles self-assemble into micelles, as shown by small angle x ray scattering (SAXS). Without water, THF is likely both inside and outside the micelles. SAXS shows that micelles shrink with 4% water in THF because water molecules partition inside them and are smaller than THF. With additional water, micelles swell into emulsions. Dissimilar to THF, DMSO preferentially interacts with the glycerol ester heads rather than their tails. ATR-FTIR shows that the proportion of free vs bonded S=O groups of DMSO decreases upon mixing with glycerol esters. DMSO and glycerol esters primarily accept H bonds, as indicated by their sigma profile. This leads to competition for interactions with water, displacing DMSO.
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".