MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012232578 · doi:10.1515/hf.2011.023

Effects of ionic strength, monoethanolamine, copper, and pH on adsorption of alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride in wood

2011· article· en· W2012232578 on OpenAlexafffund
Myung Jae Lee, Paul Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryAdsorptionCopperLeaching (pedology)ChemisorptionAmmonium chlorideAlkylAmmoniumInorganic chemistryIonic strengthPhysisorptionChlorideIon exchangeOrganic chemistryIonAqueous solutionSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Various factors were investigated that could affect the adsorption of alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC) on red pine wood. An increase in ionic strength of ADBAC solution had little effect on ion exchange (chemisorption) but allowed higher hydrophobic uptake (physisorption) of ADBAC in wood. ADBAC solution containing high amounts of monoethanolamine (MEA) and Cu decreased the chemisorption of ADBAC; free MEA and Cu appear to compete with ADBAC cations for the same bonding sites in wood. When ADBAC in MEA solution was adsorbed on wood under different pH conditions, ADBAC adsorption increased with increasing pH, but was considerably lower than the cation exchange capacity of red pine. Red pine blocks were treated radially and longitudinally with alkaline copper quat solution to verify how the micelle form of ADBAC penetrates into wood. Copper penetrated evenly into 50 mm thick wood samples with little gradient with depth; however, high amounts of ADBAC were concentrated on the surface creating a steep gradient with depth. After accelerated leaching, considerable amounts of physically adsorbed ADBAC leached out, especially from the surface.

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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207