Modeling l‐dopa purification by chiral ligand‐exchange chromatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A model describing elution‐band profiles that combines multiple chemical equilibria theory with the nonideal equilibrium–dispersion equation for solute transport is used to predict and characterize the separation of l,d‐dopa by chiral ligand‐exchange chromatography (CLEC). Formation constants and stoichiometries for all equilibrium complexes formed in the interstitial volume and pore liquid are taken from standard thermodynamic databases and independent potentiometric titration experiments. Formation constants for complexes formed with the stationary phase ligand (N‐octyl‐3‐octylthio‐d‐valine) are determined from potentiometric titration data for a water‐soluble analogue of the ligand. This set of pure thermodynamic parameters is used to calculate the spatially discretized composition of each column volume element as a function of time. The model includes a temperature‐dependent pure‐component parameter, determined by regression to a single elution band for the pure component, that corrects for subtle effects associated with immobilizing the N‐octyl‐3‐octylthio‐d‐valine ligand onto the stationary phase. The model is shown to accurately predict elution chromatograms and separation performance as a function of key column operating variables. The model is then used to better understand the connection between chemical equilibria within the system and changes in band profiles and band separation resulting from changes in column operating conditions. © 2007 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2007
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".