MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020077403 · doi:10.1021/ac001192j

Development of Rotating Electrochemical Detectors for Capillary Electrophoresis

2001· article· en· W2020077403 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelkader Hilmi, John H. T. Luong

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaBiotechnology Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCapillary electrophoresisPentachlorophenolAmperometryDetection limitElectrodeWorking electrodeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyCatecholElectrochemistryPassivationElectrophoresisAnalyteEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rotating disk electrode (RDE) has been evaluated and optimized for the detection of electroactive species separated by capillary electrophoresis (CE). With catechol as a working model, the limit of detection was estimated to be 0.3 microM, i.e., approximately 2.5-fold better than that of the stationary disk electrode (0.7 microM). Separation efficiency was significantly improved as exemplified by an increase of theoretical plates from 26,000 plates/m at 0 rpm to 67,000 plates/m at 500 rpm. Of particular importance was the capability of RDE to alleviate electrode passivation and electrical interference associated with high separation potential fields. Therefore, rotation amperometry was especially useful for analytes such as phenolic compounds that tended to rapidly foul the electrode surface. The RDE/ CE system was capable of separation and determination of pentachlorophenol in contaminated soils, and the result obtained agreed well with conventional liquid chromatography, an EPA recommended procedure.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207