MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065985708 · doi:10.1021/jf061653n

Electromigration Behavior of a Mixture of Chitosan Oligomers at Different Concentrations

2006· article· en· W2065985708 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Aïder, Joseph Arul, Mircea‐Alexandru Mateescu, Serge Brunet, Laurent Bazinet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromigrationChitosanChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the effect of the concentration of a chitosan oligomer mixture on its electrophoretic behavior was studied as a function of pH and ionic strength added. It was shown that the concentration has a significant effect on the average electrophoretic mobility of the chitosan oligomer mixture and on isoelectric point. At a concentration of 3%, the ionic strength added did not show any effect on the electromigration behavior of the chitosan oligomer mixture. By decreasing the concentration of the chitosan oligomer mixture, ionic strength showed a significant effect on the average electrophoretic mobility but not on the isoelectric point. The highest shift of the isoelectric point was recorded in water at 0.003% concentration of the oligomer mixture. Under these conditions, the isoelectric point was at pH 5 whereas it was at pH 8 at 3% concentration of chitosan oligomer mixture. Electrophoretic measurements were also taken in water/ethanol aqueous medium. By adding ethanol to the medium, the average electrophoretic mobility decreased. This would have been caused by the increase in viscosity of the medium. Increasing ethanol ratio in the running medium, the isoelectric point moved from pH 5 in water up to pH 6-8 dependently on chitosan oligomer mixture concentration and ethanol content of the medium.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207