Preparation and sorption studies of β‐cyclodextrin/epichlorohydrin copolymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract β‐Cyclodextrin (β‐CD) copolymer materials were synthesized by reacting different mole ratios (1 : 15, 1 : 25 and 1 : 35) of β‐CD with epichlorohydrin (EP). The products were characterized using N 2 porosimetry, Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, 13 C CP‐MAS NMR spectroscopy, thermogravimetry analysis, elemental (C and H) analysis, and scanning electron microscopy. The sorption properties in aqueous solution were studied using p‐nitrophenol (PNP) with UV–Vis spectrophotometry. Sorption isotherms were obtained at pH 4.6 and three temperatures (22, 35, and 45°C) and at pH 10.3 at 22°C. The isotherms were analyzed using the BET isotherm model and the sorption parameters provided estimates of the surface area, sorption capacity, and isosteric heats of sorption for each polymeric material. The estimated surface areas are as follows: 58.2, 52.1, and 90.1 m 2 /g at pH 4.6. At pH 10.3, the estimated surface areas are 44.2, 40.5, and 58.5 m 2 /g, respectively. The removal efficiency of PNP by the polymeric materials ranged between 4.5 and 58% for the conditions investigated whereas the isosteric heats ranged between −24.5 and −13.6 kJ/mol. Removal efficiencies were concluded to strongly depend on the sorption conditions such as pH, temperature, and the relative amounts of sorbent and dye in aqueous solution. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".