Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A Size-Dependent Ideal Solution Model for Liquid-Solid Phase Equilibria Prediction in Aqueous Organic Solutions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a volume-fraction entropy of mixing turns the ideal solution model into a zero-parameter predictor for aqueous organic liquid-solid phase diagrams, cutting average liquidus error by 59% across ten binaries.

desk verdict Useful zero-parameter liquidus model for aqueous organics; the 'entropy dominates' interpretation needs an activity check before it's sold as physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17968 v1 pith:XSDMD2EU submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-ph

Spencer P. Alliston , Chris Dames , Matthew J. Powell-Palm This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords idealsolutionmodelFloryentropyofmixingvolumefractionliquidustemperaturepredictioneutecticaqueousorganicsolutionsphasediagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that much of the apparent non-ideality of aqueous organic solutions is not caused by molecular interactions but by the size difference between small water molecules and larger organic solutes acting on the entropy of mixing. Replacing the mole-fraction entropy of mixing in the classic ideal solution model with a Flory-style volume-fraction entropy yields a size-dependent chemical potential and a closed-form liquidus equation that require only each pure component's molar volume, enthalpy of fusion, and melting temperature. Tested on ten water-organic binaries, the model lowers average liquidus, eutectic-temperature, and eutectic-composition errors by 59%, 45%, and 43% relative to the classic ideal model. If correct, it provides a zero-parameter way to predict simple-eutectic aqueous organic phase diagrams, which would accelerate screening of cryoprotectants and natural deep eutectic solvents.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Eqn (1), the Flory entropy of mixing $\Delta S_{\mathrm{mix}} = -R\sum_i x_i \ln\phi_i$, with volume fractions $\phi_i = x_i v_i / \sum_j x_j v_j$. Substituting this into the ideal-solution Gibbs energy and differentiating gives the chemical potential $\mu_A = G_A + RT[\ln\phi_A + (1-\phi_A)(1-1/V_{R,A})]$, where $V_{R,A}=v_B/v_A$. A Gibbs-Helmholtz integration then yields Eqn (9), the liquidus temperature as a function of volume fraction: $T_{\mathrm{liq},A} = \left(1/T_{m,A} - R[\ln(1/\phi_A)-(1-\phi_A)(1-1/V_{R,A})]/\Delta_{\mathrm{fus}}H_A^0\right)^{-1}$. This equation is the zero-parameter predictor; it reduces to the classical ideal liquidus when $V_{R,A}=1$, and it is evaluated for each component with the stable (higher) liquidus retained to construct the phase diagram.

What would settle it

Measure the enthalpy of mixing of aqueous urea or glycerol across the full composition range; if $\Delta H_{\mathrm{mix}}$ near the eutectic is comparable to the size-entropy term $RT[\ln\phi_A + (1-\phi_A)(1-1/V_{R,A})]$, then the claim that entropic size effects dominate would be falsified. A second check would be to apply Eqn (9) to a strongly hydrogen-bonded aqueous system with a large molar-volume ratio and see whether systematic failure tracks the neglected excess enthalpy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that incorporating the Flory entropy of mixing, $\Delta S_{\mathrm{mix}} = -R\sum_i x_i \ln \phi_i$, where $\phi_i$ is the volume fraction, into the ideal-solution Gibbs energy produces a chemical potential and a liquidus temperature that depend on the molar-volume ratio of the two components. The resulting liquidus equation, Eqn (9), predicts binary phase diagrams for water with each of ten non-ionic organic solutes using only pure-component melting temperature, enthalpy of fusion, and molar volume, and it outperforms the classical ideal model in every case studied. Because the model deliberately keeps the ideal assumption of zero enthalpy of mixing, the paper reads the systematic improvement as evidence that much of the deviation typically attributed to hydrogen bonding in these solutions is actually an entropic size effect. The paper also notes residual deviations for heavily interacting solutes such as sucrose, which it attributes to additional interaction factors beyond the size-entropy term.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the enthalpy of mixing is exactly zero and that all non-ideality is captured by the volume-fraction entropy term; the paper's own sucrose results show this fails for strongly interacting solutes, so the improvement would be at least partly coincidental if enthalpic interactions materially control the liquidus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any non-ionic aqueous organic system with a simple eutectic, liquidus curves and eutectic points can be estimated from pure-component properties alone, with no solution-specific measurements.
  • Across the ten systems tested, the size-dependent model cuts the average liquidus residual by 59%, the eutectic-temperature error by 45%, and the eutectic-composition error by 43% relative to the classical ideal model.
  • The classic attribution of depressed liquidus curves in aqueous organics to hydrogen bonding is called into question; a substantial part of that depression may be a size-entropy effect.
  • Because the derivation preserves the ideal model's zero-parameter structure, it can be dropped into derivative formulations, suggesting routes to size-dependent regular-solution and activity models.
  • The model's accuracy holds across disparate molar-volume ratios, meaning it is equally applicable to large solutes in water and to small solutes in large solvents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the zero-enthalpy premise would be to measure excess enthalpies for urea-water or glycerol-water; if these approach the size-entropy term near the eutectic, the entropic explanation would be weakened.
  • The model's structure suggests that activity coefficients in non-ionic solutions could be decomposed into a volume-fraction reference term and a residual enthalpic term, isolating interactions in a way the mole-fraction basis cannot.
  • If the entropic dominance is real, cryoprotectant toxicity and permeability screens may correlate more strongly with solute molar volume ratios than with chemical interaction strength, a prediction that existing toxicity datasets could test.
  • Temperature-dependent molar volumes could extend the model's accuracy near the eutectic, where the constant-enthalpy-of-fusion assumption is known to weaken.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a size-dependent extension of the ideal solution model for binary aqueous organic solutions. The key idea is to replace the mole-fraction entropy of mixing with a Flory-style volume-fraction entropy (Eqn. 1), so that the chemical potential of each component depends on molar-volume ratios. The authors derive a liquidus-temperature formula (Eqn. 9) whose only inputs are pure-component melting temperature, enthalpy of fusion, and molar volume, and they compare its predictions with literature phase diagrams for ten aqueous organic systems. They report a 59% reduction in liquidus residual temperature, a 45% reduction in eutectic temperature error, and a 43% reduction in eutectic composition error relative to the classic ideal model, and they interpret the improvement as evidence that size-dependent mixing entropy, rather than molecular interactions, dominates deviations from ideality in these solutions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the model offers a genuinely zero-parameter improvement over the ideal solution model for a practically important class of mixtures, with possible applications in cryopreservation, deep eutectic solvents, and solution design. The derivation is transparent and the inputs are standard pure-component properties, which makes the approach easy to adopt and test. The strength of the paper is its parameter-free predictive structure and the explicit comparison against external experimental phase diagrams. However, the manuscript's physical interpretation is not supported by independent thermodynamic evidence, and the printed central equation contains a sign error that as written would make the model predict liquidus temperatures above the melting point. These issues need to be resolved before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [The Size-Dependent Ideal Solution Model, Eqn. (9)] The sign in Eqn. (9) is inconsistent with Eqn. (8). Solving Eqn. (8) for 1/T_liq gives 1/T_liq = 1/T_m + R[ln(1/φ_A) - (1-φ_A)(1 - 1/V_R,A)] / Δ_fus H_A^0, not the minus sign printed in Eqn. (9). With the printed minus sign, the predicted liquidus lies above the pure melting temperature for ordinary cases with V_R>1; for example, with φ_A=0.5, V_R=4, T_m=273 K, and Δ_fus H=6000 J/mol, Eqn. (9) gives T_liq≈310 K, whereas the physically correct plus sign gives T_liq≈244 K. This contradicts the text's assertion in the same section that 'any V_R,A ≠ 1 will lower the liquidus temperatures.' The results in Figs. 1-3 depend on Eqn. (9), so the equation must be corrected and all figures and error statistics rechecked against the corrected formula.
  2. [Discussion, Eqn. (4)] The paper's central physical conclusion—that much of the deviation from ideality in aqueous organic solutions is entropic rather than enthalpic—is not established by liquidus comparisons alone. The size term in Eqn. (1) always depresses the predicted liquidus for V_R≠1, and the ten experimental datasets are systems whose liquidi lie predominantly below the classic ideal prediction, so a one-directional baseline shift will reduce the mean error whether or not the true non-ideality is entropic. Eqn. (4) makes a parameter-free prediction for component activities, e.g. water activity a_w = φ_w exp[(1-φ_w)(1 - v_w/v_solute)], which can be compared directly with published water-activity measurements for glycerol, sucrose, urea, and other systems; the manuscript reports no such comparison. Without this independent test, or an explicit disclaimer that the zero-enthalpy assumption is a modeling ansatz, the 'underappreciated dominance of mixing entropy' conclusion is an overreach. The sucrose case in Fig. 1c, where residual deviations are attributed to 'additional interaction factors,' already shows that the zero-enthalpy premise fails in at least one of the ten systems.
  3. [Comparison of model to experimental data, Fig. 2a] The headline 59% reduction in liquidus error is based on an 'aggregate residual' defined as a trapezoidal integral of the difference between experimental and predicted liquidus temperatures. If this is a signed integral, positive and negative deviations cancel, so a poor fit that crosses the data can appear better than a consistently biased fit. The caption does not specify whether absolute values were used, and the text in the same section that 'the residual of the classic ideal model diverges' suggests a signed cumulative quantity. The paper should report a mean absolute deviation or root-mean-square error over the composition range, and if the figures used signed residuals, the three quantitative claims in the abstract need to be recomputed with an absolute metric.
  4. [Comparison of model to experimental data, first paragraph and Fig. 2] The validation set is limited to ten non-ionic aqueous organic systems exhibiting simple eutectic behavior, and some of the reference data are not fully equilibrium simple-eutectic data: ethylene glycol and D-fructose are compared using metastable simple eutectics, and sorbitol and maltitol have interpolated rather than measured eutectic compositions. Because Eqn. (9) can only generate a simple eutectic between two pure solids, using metastable or interpolated reference points may bias the comparison in the model's favor. The abstract and conclusion generalize to 'aqueous organic solutions' without these restrictions; the claims should be explicitly scoped to non-ionic simple-eutectic systems, or additional systems with compound formation or hydrates should be tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'entopic' in the abstract should be 'entropic.'
  2. [Model, Eqn. (3)] The text says the free energy is 'differentiated with respect to x_A,' but the chemical potential is defined by differentiation with respect to the amount of component A at constant T, P, and n_B; the resulting expression appears correct, but the stated operation is not the standard definition.
  3. [Model, Discussion of excess volume] The manuscript asserts that excess volumes in aqueous organic solutions 'generally remain <1%' and refers to Supplementary Note 1, but the relevant evidence is not presented in the main text; a brief sensitivity table would make the claim checkable.
  4. [Data availability] For reproducibility, the authors should provide the tabulated pure-component input data, the ten experimental datasets, and the model curves in a repository, since the paper's value proposition depends on the exact numerical comparison.
  5. [References] Reference 16 contains a typo ('thoery' should be 'theory').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (9) is a parameter-free prediction from pure-component data, validated against external phase diagrams; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eqn. (9) follows algebraically from the explicitly stated Flory entropy ansatz, Eqn. (1), and the standard Gibbs-Helmholtz integration; no solution-specific parameter is fitted. The inputs are pure-component molar volumes, enthalpies of fusion, and melting temperatures taken from NIST, while the outputs are binary liquidus curves, eutectic temperatures, and eutectic compositions compared against 10 independent experimental datasets. Therefore the reported 59%, 45%, and 43% error reductions are genuine out-of-sample predictive claims, not fits renamed as predictions. The interpretive conclusion that size entropy dominates is, however, built into the zero-enthalpy-of-mixing assumption, so the liquidus comparisons alone do not independently prove entropic dominance over enthalpic interactions; that is a limitation of the physical interpretation, not a circular derivation. The one self-citation (ref. 15, same senior author) supports the minor assumption that excess volumes are small, and the paper states an independent check in Supplementary Note 1; it is not load-bearing for the central predictive result. A one-directional entropy term does tend to lower liquidi and thereby reduce error for these predominantly depressed systems, but this is a real, falsifiable prediction rather than a construction: the authors explicitly acknowledge that heavily interacting systems with elevated eutectics would not be captured. A separate correctness note, unrelated to circularity, is that Eq. (9) as printed appears to have a sign inconsistency with Eq. (8) (the closed-form liquidus should carry a plus sign before the Flory term to depress T_liq); this does not affect the circularity verdict. Overall, the central quantitative claim is self-contained and externally tested, so the appropriate score is 1 rather than 0 only because of the minor non-load-bearing self-citation and the assumption-laden interpretive framing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's predictive content rests on two physical assumptions (zero heat of mixing, Flory entropy) and several standard ideal-model simplifications (pure solids, constant enthalpy of fusion, constant molar volumes). No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced; the central equation is a combination of known ideal and Flory-Huggins thermodynamics.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Zero enthalpy of mixing: hydrogen bonding and other interaction energies do not affect the liquidus.
    Retained from ideal solution theory in Eqn (2); the paper assigns all deviations from Raoult behavior to the entropy term. This is acknowledged in the abstract and Discussion.
  • domain assumption Flory-Huggins entropy of mixing, dS_mix = -R * sum_i x_i ln(phi_i), is the correct mixing entropy for small-molecule aqueous organic solutions.
    Adopted from polymer thermodynamics in Eqn (1); the paper's central modification. It is not independently derived for these systems.
  • domain assumption Each component forms a pure solid phase with no solid solubility or compounds.
    Assumed when equating solid chemical potential to GA,s in Eqn (5); restricts validation to simple eutectic systems.
  • domain assumption Enthalpy of fusion is independent of temperature.
    Used to integrate Eqn (7); the paper notes this approximation weakens far from melting points, near eutectics.
  • domain assumption Molar volumes are constant with temperature and composition (zero excess volume).
    Volume fractions in Eqn (9) use room-temperature pure molar volumes; Discussion claims excess volumes are typically below 1 percent for aqueous organics.
  • standard math Classical thermodynamics identities, including the Gibbs-Helmholtz relation, apply under isobaric conditions.
    Background used to pass from Eqn (6) to Eqn (7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Size-Dependent Ideal Solution Model for Liquid-Solid Phase Equilibria Prediction in Aqueous Organic Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSDMD2EU

@misc{pith2026241117968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Size-Dependent Ideal Solution Model for Liquid-Solid Phase Equilibria Prediction in Aqueous Organic Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSDMD2EU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17968}
}
read the original abstract

Predictive synthesis of aqueous organic solutions with desired liquid-solid phase equilibria could drive progress in industrial chemistry, cryopreservation, and beyond, but is limited by the predictive power of current solution thermodynamics models. In particular, few analytical models enable accurate liquidus and eutectic prediction based only on bulk thermodynamic properties of the pure components, requiring instead either direct measurement or costly simulation of solution properties. In this work, we demonstrate that a simple modification to the canonical ideal solution theory accounting for the entopic effects of dissimilar molecule sizes can transform its predictive power, while offering new insight into the thermodynamic nature of aqueous organic solutions. Incorporating a Flory-style entropy of mixing term that includes both the mole and volume fractions of each component, we derive size-dependent equations for the ideal chemical potential and liquidus temperature, and use them to predict the binary phase diagrams of water and 10 organic solutes of varying sizes. We show that size-dependent prediction outperforms the ideal model in all cases, reducing average error in the predicted liquidus temperature by 59\%, eutectic temperature by 45\%, and eutectic composition by 43\%, as compared to experimental data. Furthermore, by retaining the ideal assumption that the enthalpy of mixing is zero, we demonstrate that for aqueous organic solutions, much of the deviation from ideality that is typically attributed to molecular interactions may in fact be explained by simple entropic size effects. These results suggest an underappreciated dominance of mixing entropy in these solutions, and provide a simple approach to predicting their phase equilibria.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example phase diagram predictions for representative aqueous organic solutions. (a) Classic ideal prediction vs. size-dependent prediction for glycerol and water, a solution frequently used in cryopreservation. Analogous data is shown for (b) urea and water and (c) sucrose and water, which are the smallest and largest solutes included in this study. Urea and sucrose have each previously had their depressed liquidus … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. model curves. (b) Error in predicted composition of eutectic point. (c) Error in predicted eutectic temperature. Data for (b) and (c) are shown in absolute difference from experimentally-determined eutectic point in mole fraction and K, respectively. Predictions using the size-dependent model are improved in all cases. Experimental equilibria (a) Residual temperatures of predicted liquidus curves. Data shown are tra… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MA Martins, SP Pinho, JA Coutinho, Insights into the Nature of Eutectic and Deep Eutectic Mixtures. J. Solut. Chem . 48, 962–982 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    KA Murray, MI Gibson, Chemical approaches to cryopreservation. Nat. Rev. Chem. 6, 579–593 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    ACS Sustain

    A Paiva, et al., Natural deep eutectic solvents – solvents for the 21st century. ACS Sustain. Chem. & Eng . 2, 1063–1071 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    NC Garbett, JB Chaires, Thermodynamic studies for drug design and screening. Expert. Opin. on Drug Discov . 7, 299–314 (2012) PMID: 22458502

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    G Klebe, Applying thermodynamic profiling in lead finding and optimization. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 95–110 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    W Oates, Ideal solutions. J. Chem. Educ . 46, 501 (1969)

    work page 1969

  7. [7]

    JH Hildebrand, A Quantitative Treatment of Deviations from Raoult’s Law. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 13, 267–272 (1927)

    work page 1927

  8. [8]

    (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.), (1970)

    JH Hildebrand, JM Prausnitz, RLRL Scott, Regular and related solutions : the solubility of gases, liquids, and solids . (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.), (1970)

    work page 1970

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    (McGraw-Hill, New Y ork), (1968)

    P Gordon, Principles of Phase Diagrams in Materials Systems . (McGraw-Hill, New Y ork), (1968)

    1968

  2. [10]

    T ransactions Faraday Soc

    RA Robinson, RH Stokes, Tables of osmotic and activity coefficients of electrolytes in aqueous solution at 25 c. T ransactions Faraday Soc. 45, 612–624 (1949)

    1949

  3. [11]

    Hepsa Ely Silliman memorial lectures

    S Arrhenius, Theories of Solutions , Mrs. Hepsa Ely Silliman memorial lectures. (Y ale University Press), (1912)

    1912

  4. [12]

    JD Martin, AM Shipman, Deep Dive into Eutectics: On the Origin of Deep and Elevated Eutectics. J. The Electrochem. Soc . 170, 066508 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    P Flory, Thermodynamics of high polymer solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 22, 415–426 (1942)

    1942

  6. [14]

    ML Huggins, Theory of Solutions of High Polymers. J. Am. Chem. Soc . 64, 1712–1719 (1942)

    1942

  7. [15]

    MJ Powell-Palm, H Smith, MM Fahad, An entropic theory of homogeneous ice nucleation in non-ionic aqueous solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 160 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    JH Hildebrand, A critique of the thoery of solubility of non-electrolytes. Symp. on Thermodyn. Mol. Struct. Solutions, Am. Chem. Soc . pp. 37–45 (1948). 6 — www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.XXXXXXXXXX Alliston et al. DRAFT

    1948 doi

  9. [17]

    Fluid Phase Equilibria 103, 23–39 (1995)

    JA Coutinho, SI Andersen, EH Stenby, Evaluation of activity coefficient models in prediction of alkane solid-liquid equilibria. Fluid Phase Equilibria 103, 23–39 (1995)

    1995

  10. [18]

    JH Hansen, A Fredenslund, KS Pedersen, HP Rønningsen, A thermodynamic model for predicting wax formation in crude oils. AIChE J. 34, 1937–1942 (1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    K Hornberger, R Li, ARC Duarte, A Hubel, Natural deep eutectic systems for nature-inspired cryopreservation of cells. AIChE J. 67, e17085 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    bioRxiv (2024)

    N Ahmadkhani, JD Benson, A Eroglu, AZ Higgins, High throughput method for simultaneous screening of membrane permeability and toxicity for discovery of new cryoprotective agents. bioRxiv (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    (CRC Press), (2021)

    D Porter, K Easterling, M Sherif, Phase T ransformations in Metals and Alloys (4th ed.) . (CRC Press), (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    BJ Murray, AK Bertram, Inhibition of solute crystallisation in aqueous h+nh4+so42–h2o droplets. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 3287–3301 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    A Hudait, V Molinero, Ice crystallization in ultrafine water–salt aerosols: Nucleation, ice-solution equilibrium, and internal structure. J. Am. Chem. Soc . 136, 8081–8093 (2014) PMID: 24820354

    2014

  16. [24]

    J Sangster, Phase Diagrams and Thermodynamic Properties of Binary Systems of Drugs. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 28, 889–930 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    TS Babkina, AV Kuznetsov, Phase equilibria in binary subsystems of urea-biuret-water system. J. Therm. Analysis Calorim . 101, 33–40 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    L Shnidman, AA Sunier, The solubility of urea in water. J. Phys. Chem. (1932)

    1932

  19. [27]

    JB Ott, JR Goates, JD Lamb, Solid-liquid phase equilibria in water + ethylene glycol. The J. Chem. Thermodyn. 4, 123–126 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    KD Beyer, K Friesen, JR Bothe, B Palet, Phase diagrams and water activities of aqueous dicarboxylic acid systems of atmospheric importance. The J. Phys. Chem. A 112, 11704–11713 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    LB Lane, Freezing Points of Glycerol and its Aqueous Solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem . 17, 924 (1925)

    1925

  22. [30]

    BFE Y oung, FT Jones, HJ Lewis, d-FRUCTOSE-WATER phase diagram.J. Phys. Chem. 222, 1093–1096 (1952)

    1952

  23. [31]

    Physcial Chem

    FE Y oung, d-GLUCOSE-WATER PHASE DIAGRAM.J. Physcial Chem. 61, 616–619 (1957)

    1957

  24. [32]

    Thermochimica Acta 325, 171–180 (1999)

    M Siniti, S Jabrane, JM L ´etoff´e, Study of the respective binary phase diagrams of sorbitol with mannitol, maltitol and water. Thermochimica Acta 325, 171–180 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    FE Y oung, FT Jones, HYDRATES The Sucrose-Water phase diagram.J. Phys. Colloid Chem. pp. 1334–1350 (1949)

    1949

  26. [34]

    (MacMillan Co., New Y ork), (1963)

    H Stephen, T Stephen, Solubilities of Inorganic and Organic Compounds . (MacMillan Co., New Y ork), (1963)

    1963

  27. [35]

    B Bechtold, P Fletcher, seamusholden, S Gorur-Shandilya, bastibe/violinplot-matlab: A good starting point (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    T Koop, A Kapilashrami, LT Molina, MJ Molina, Phase transitions of sea-salt/water mixtures at low temperatures: Implications for ozone chemistry in the polar marine boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 105, 26393–26402 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Y Liang, Y Y ao, Designing modern aqueous batteries.Nat. Rev. Mater. 8, 109–122 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    EL Smith, AP Abbott, KS Ryder, Deep eutectic solvents (dess) and their applications. Chem. Rev. 114, 11060–11082 (2014) PMID: 25300631

    2014

  31. [39]

    npj Clean Water 5 (2022)

    A Najim, A review of advances in freeze desalination and future prospects. npj Clean Water 5 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    SD Vance, B Journaux, M Hesse, G Steinbr ¨ugge, The salty secrets of icy ocean worlds. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 126, e2020JE006736 (2021) e2020JE006736 2020JE006736

    2021

  33. [41]

    Cryobiology 98, 219–232 (2021)

    RM Warner, et al., Rapid quantification of multi-cryoprotectant toxicity using an automated liquid handling method. Cryobiology 98, 219–232 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Cryobiology 108, 1–9 (2022)

    RM Warner, KS Brown, JD Benson, A Eroglu, AZ Higgins, Multiple cryoprotectant toxicity model for vitrification solution optimization. Cryobiology 108, 1–9 (2022). Alliston et al. PNAS — November 28, 2024 — vol. XXX — no. XX — 7

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.