MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007695246 · doi:10.1139/v08-095

Comparison of chelating ion exchange resins in sorption of copper(II) and zinc(II) complexes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)

2008· article· en· W2007695246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dorota Kołodyńska, Zbigniew Hubicki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNitrilotriacetic acidChelationEthylenediaminetetraacetic acidIminodiacetic acidZincCopperSorptionMetal ions in aqueous solutionInorganic chemistryChelating resinMetalAdsorptionIon exchangeThioureaIon-exchange resinNuclear chemistryIonOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the macroporous chelating ion exchangers with different functional groups for their sorption properties towards the copper(II) and zinc(II) ions. The investigations by the dynamic and static methods were carried out in the presence of traditional complexing agents. The differences in affinity of Cu(II) and Zn(II) complexes with these complexones result from the kind of functional groups of the chelating ion exchangers, such as thiourea, aminomethylphosphonate, iminodiacetate, and polyamine groups as well as from the pH value. The quantitative removal of studied heavy metal complexes using chelating ion exchangers is achieved in the case when resins compete successfully for the heavy metal ions against these chelators.Key words: chelating resins, heavy metals, EDTA, NTA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicChemical Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207