{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029013539651837523, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005319148936170213, 'mean_word_length': 5.13946587537092, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fluorination of the hydrophilic head accelerates the collapse of the monolayer but stabilizes the bilayer of a long-chain trifluoroethyl ether on water.

A comparison of the collapse of Langmuir monolayers of docosyl trifluoroethyl ether (DFEE) and docosyl ethyl ether (DEE) on water shows that in both films the 3D phase is formed layer-by-layer. The substitution of CH3 by a CF3 group in the hydrophilic head yields a more stable bilayer exhibiting lower equilibrium spreading pressure, pi(esp)(DFEE) < pi(esp)(DEE). Upon lateral compression, the DFEE bilayer fractures abruptly as a compact solid body whereas the DEE bilayer breaks down gradually as a polycrystalline material. A comparison of the collapse kinetics of the two films at the same constant supersaturation pi-pi(esp) = 7 mN/m shows that the fluorinated DFEE monolayer transforms more quickly, yielding a stable bilayer of closely packed upright molecules, whereas the DEE film undergoes a continuous monolayer-bilayer-multilayer transition. Brewster angle microscopy allows us to visualize different collapse mechanisms of the DFEE and DEE films; the domains of the fluorinated DFEE bilayer grow laterally at constant thickness and density, and the collapse of the nonfluorinated DEE monolayer occurs through a sequence of disordered stripelike and broken elongated textures. The characteristic molecular areas of the monolayer and bilayer collapse suggest that the 2D-3D transition in the DFEE and DEE films is accompanied by at least partial dehydration of their headgroups. The faster collapse of the fluorinated monolayer could result from a lower energy barrier due to the more hydrophobic CF3 group in the heads. The increased stability of the DFEE bilayer could be associated with the electrostatic attraction between the -C(F delta-)3 versus (H delta+)3C- terminals at the heads-to-tails contact plane of the top and the bottom layer, contrasting with the repulsion between the -C(H delta+)3 versus (H delta+)3C- terminals of the top-layer heads and the bottom-layer tails in the DEE bilayer.