Sorption of Aromatic Compounds with Copolymer Sorbent Materials Containing β-Cyclodextrin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urethane copolymer sorbent materials that incorporate β-cyclodextrin (CD) have been prepared and their sorption properties with chlorinated aromatic compounds (i.e., pentachlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) have been evaluated. The sorption properties of granular activated carbon (GAC) were similarly compared in aqueous solution at variable pH conditions. The sorbents displayed variable BET surface areas as follows: MDI-X copolymers (< 10¹ m²/g), CDI-X copolymers (< 10¹ m²/g), and granular activated carbon (GAC ~10³ m²/g). The sorption capacities for the copolymers sorbents are listed in descending order, as follows: GAC > CDI-3 copolymer ≈ MDI-3 copolymer. The sorption capacity for the aromatic adsorbates with each sorbent are listed in descending order, as follows: 2,4-dichlorophenol > 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid > pentachlorophenol. In general, the differences in the sorption properties of the copolymer sorbents with the chlorinated organics were related to the following factors: (i) surface area of the sorbent; (ii) CD content and accessibility; and (iii) and the chemical nature of the sorbent material.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".