Characterization of absorbent polymers for the removal of volatile hydrophobic pollutants from air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: An emerging innovation for the treatment of polluted air consists in using a liquid–solid biphasic system, in which the sequestering phase contains inert polymer beads. The different polymers tested here for this purpose were; Hytrel ® G3548L, Hytrel ® G4078W, styrene butadiene copolymer, 28% and 31%, silicone rubber, PEBAX ® 2533, and rubber tires. The selection of the most effective polymer(s) first requires a determination of the uptake of the pollutants by the solid phase in terms of key polymer properties such as partition coefficient, diffusion coefficient and biodegradability. RESULTS: A significant difference was found in the uptake levels of α‐pinene from the gas phase for the different polymers tested. Based on partition coefficient measurements, relatively non‐polar polymers such as Kraton ® tend to uptake α‐pinene better than polar ones, such as Hytrel ® . A reduction in the partition coefficient of α‐pinene into polymers in the presence of water has also been observed. It was also proven that the tested polymers are not biodegradable. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of α‐pinene by the different polymers tested was determined and it was shown that such polymers could be used for air pollution control. Furthermore, their non‐biodegradability justifies their use as absorbents. This paper provides a new opportunity to work with biofilters (BFs)/biotrickling filters (BTFs) using polymers as a sequestering phase. Copyright © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".