MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973892759 · doi:10.2174/1876530001003010001

Spectroscopic Analysis of Poly (Methacrylic Acid-co-Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate) Submicron Particles by Fluorescence Emission and Light Scattering upon Binding with 17β-Estradiol in Water Treatment

2010· article· en· W1973892759 on OpenAlexafffund
Yang Yu, Edward P. C. Lai, Min Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Colloid Science Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNIPEthylene glycol dimethacrylateMethacrylic acidMaterials scienceLight scatteringFluorescenceAqueous solutionScatteringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Dynamic light scatteringStatic light scatteringSuspension (topology)PolymerChemistryChromatographyNanoparticleOpticsCopolymerNanotechnologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation of light scattering of non-imprinted poly methacrylic acid-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (PMAA-co-EGDMA) submicron particles (3005 nm) in aqueous suspension before and after 17-estradiol (E2) binding was conducted by using a spectrofluorimeter. An optimal excitation wavelength to determine Mie scattering from these submicron particles was 7251 nm for the highest intensity. This light scattering from non-imprinted polymer (NIP) submicron particles in aqueous suspension was increased by spiking E2 at various concentrations (from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm). Thus, a new alternative method was found to determine E2 in a water sample by measurement of light scattering from NIP particles using spectrofluorimetry. Furthermore, the light scattering at 725 nm from E2 solution was increased by spiking NIP particles at various concentrations (from 0.02 to 0.12 ppm) but the fluorescence emission essentially stayed constant. The fluorescence emission from E2, however, increased more significantly in the presence of NIP particles than E2 spiking into water alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Colloid Science JournalSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207