Behavior of glucose oxidase immobilized in various electropolymerized thin films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucose oxidase was immobilized by electropolymerization into films of polyaniline, polyindole, polypyrrole, poly(o-phenylediamine), and polyaniline crosslinked with p-phenylenediamine. The kinetics and the behavior of the entrapped enzyme toward elevated temperature, organic solvent denaturation, and pH were investigated, along with the response of the films to electroactive species such as acetaminophen, ascorbate, cysteine, and uric acid. For most of the films, linearity to glucose extended from 7 to 10 mM. The poly(o-phenylenediamine)/glucose oxidase film gave the best signal/noise ratio and polypyrrole/glucose oxidase film gave the most reproducible current responses. No significant shift of the optimum reaction pH (5.5), except for polypyrrole (5.0), was observed after immobilization of glucose oxidase in the various films. Enzymatic activity decreased rapidly when pH was raised above 7.5. Thermodeactivation studies at 55 degrees , 60 degrees , and 65 degrees C have shown polypyrrole/and poly(o-phenylediamine)/glucose oxidase films to be the most resistant enzymatic films. Poly(o-phenylenediamine) films offered the best protection against glucose oxidase deactivation in hexane, chloroform, ether, THF, and acetonitrile when compared with the other electropolymerized films. All the enzymatic films exhibited permselection toward electroactive species.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".