MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Sticky electrodes’ for the detection of silver nanoparticles

2013· article· en· W2001793623 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristina Tschulik, Robert G. Palgrave, Christopher Batchelor‐McAuley, Richard G. Compton

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordLeverhulme TrustUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMaterials scienceElectrodeGlassy carbonNanoparticleSilver nanoparticleElectrolyteCarbon fibersChemical engineeringAnodic stripping voltammetryAnodeDetection limitNanotechnologyElectrochemistryComposite materialChromatographyCyclic voltammetryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection and quantification of nanoparticles in environmental systems is a task that requires reliable and affordable analytical methods. Here an approach using a cysteine-modified 'sticky' glassy carbon electrode is presented. The electrode is immersed in a silver nanoparticle containing electrolyte and left in this suspension without an applied potential, i.e. under open circuit condition, for a variable amount of time. The amount of silver nanoparticles immobilized on the electrode within this sticking time is then determined by oxidative stripping, yielding the anodic charge and thus the amount of Ag nanoparticles sticking to the electrode surface. When using a cysteine-modified glassy carbon electrode, significant and reproducible amounts of silver nanoparticles stick to the surface, which is not the case for unmodified glassy carbon surfaces. Additionally, proof-of-concept experiments are performed on real seawater samples. These demonstrate that also under simulated environmental conditions an increased immobilization and hence improved detection of silver nanoparticles on cysteine-modified glassy carbon electrodes is achieved, while no inhibitive interference with this complex matrix is observed.

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)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207