MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental design methodology applied to electrochemical oxidation of carbamazepine using Ti/PbO2 and Ti/BDD electrodes

2014· article· en· W2008126509 on OpenAlexaff
Celestino García‐Gómez, Patrick Drogui, François Zaviska, Brahima Seyhi, Pablo Gortáres‐Moroyoqui, Gerardo Buelna, C. Neira-Sáenz, María Isabel Estrada‐Alvarado, Gabriela Ulloa‐Mercado

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electroanalytical Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsCentre de Recherche Industrielle du QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryElectrolysisAnodeElectrochemistryCarbamazepineFactorial experimentAqueous solutionCentral composite designElectrolyteSupporting electrolyteElectrodeContinuous reactorBulk electrolysisNuclear chemistryChromatographyResponse surface methodologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbamazepine (CBZ), a widely consumed psychotropic pharmaceutical, is one of the most frequently detected pharmaceutical active compounds (PhACs) in water bodies. Its removal has become an issue from the human health and environmental risks point of view, due to its latent recalcitrance and toxicity properties. The oxidative removal of carbamazepine in aqueous medium has been investigated by electrooxidation processes using Ti/PbO2 and Ti/BDD circular anode electrodes in the presence of NaSO4 as electrolyte in a batch electrochemical reactor. The effect of different parameters such as current intensity (from 1 to 2 A), electrolysis time (from 60 to 120 min), recirculation flow rate (from 167 to 333 ml min−1), and anode material (PbO2 and BDD) were investigated by an experimental design methodology. A Factorial Design 24 was firstly used to determine the effect of parameters mentioned above on CBZ removal. The electrolysis time and current intensity were the main parameters affecting CBZ removal rate. Then, the optimal experimental parameters for carbamazepine removal were investigated using a Central Composite Design. The optimal conditions determined turned out to be Ti/PbO2 anode, current intensity 1.37 A, electrolysis time 101 min, and recirculation flow rate 232 ml min−1. Under these conditions the removal of 88 ± 1.2% of CBZ and 3.159 mg L−1 min−1 of p-nitrosodimethylaniline were achieved. The decay kinetics was fitted a first-order reaction.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations130
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electroanalytical ChemistrySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207