MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974095349 · doi:10.1002/jssc.200700090

Developments in ion chromatography using monolithic columns

2007· article· en· W1974095349 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart D. Chambers, Karen M. Glenn, Charles A. Lucy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsAlberta Glycomics CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonolithMonolithic HPLC columnIon chromatographyPolyelectrolyteIonic bondingColumn chromatographyCoatingCovalent bondReagentMaterials scienceChromatographyIon exchangeChemistryIonNanotechnologyPolymerHigh-performance liquid chromatographyOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this review is on current status and on-going developments in ion chromatography (IC) using monolithic phases. The use and potential of both silica and polymeric monoliths in IC is discussed, with silica monoliths achieving efficiencies upwards of 10(5) plates/m for inorganic ions in a few minutes or less. Ion exchange capacity can be introduced onto the monolithic columns through the addition of ion interaction reagents to the eluent, coating of the monolith with ionic surfactants or polyelectrolyte latexes, and covalent bonding. The majority of the studies to date have used surfactant-coated columns, but the stability of surfactant coatings limits this approach. Applications of monolithic IC columns to the separation of inorganic anions and cations are tabulated. Finally, a discussion on the recent commercialization of monolithic IC columns and the use of monolithic phases for IC peripherals such as preconcentrator columns, microextractors and suppressors is presented.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207