MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Graphite electrodes modified by 8-hydroxyquinolines and its application for the determination of copper in trace levels

2006· article· en· W2108707689 on OpenAlexafffund
Eliane R. de Sousa, Edmar Pereira Marques, Elizabeth Nunes Fernandes, Jiujun Zhang, Aldaléa Lopes Brandes Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Brazilian Chemical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation CouncilNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCopperChemistryDetection limitAnalyteStripping (fiber)Anodic stripping voltammetryTrace AmountsAdsorptionGraphiteStandard additionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chelation8-HydroxyquinolineInorganic chemistryElectrodeChromatographyMaterials scienceElectrochemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface modification by 8-hydroxyquinoline-5-sulfonic acid (8-HQS) or 8-hydroxyquinoline (8-HQ) on a graphite electrode through irreversible adsorption is reported in this paper. Cyclic voltammetry was used to characterize the surface behavior. The modified surface exhibited an affinity to chelating Cu(II) in the solution, forming a Cu(II) complex, which was employed for Cu(II) trace analysis. Of the metals Zn, Ni, Pb, Co, and Cd, none presented interference until excess concentration of 10 times. Significant interference could be observed from Co(II), Cd(II) and Fe(II) for an excess concentration of 100 times on the analyte. A differential pulse voltammetry, combined with a preconcentrating-stripping process and a standard addition method was used for the analysis. A detection limit for trace copper determination in water, such as 5.1<FONT FACE=Symbol>´</FONT>10-9 mol L-1, was obtained.

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 score0.014
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Brazilian Chemical SocietySame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207