Optimization of solid phase extraction chromatography for the separation of Np from U and Pu using experimental design tools in complex matrices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective solid phase extraction separation methods of actinides and fission products are required in the control and evaluation of common or experimental nuclear spent fuel reprocessing strategies and environmental contaminated samples. In this study, we have developed a simpler sequential analytical separation scheme to isolate 237Np from U and Pu. Experimental design tools were used to achieve parameter optimization. We studied the contribution of critical factors such as the type of resin, acidity, sulfamic acid concentration and sample volume to actinide extraction with a multivariate approach. Following a sequential assembly approach, fractional factorial designs were used to select the best resin. Full factorial designs were used to evaluate the expected response for the chosen multifactorial space. After discarding a first order linear model, the designs were augmented and the response surface methodology was used to evaluate the response through the use of a quadratic model together with graphical and canonical analysis. Knowledge acquired from multiple actinide responses allowed us to find multi-criteria compromise solutions that were successfully applied for the separation of Np from Pu and U in complex matrices.
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.
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 it