MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preparation of a Modified Octadecyl Silica Membrane Disk for Solid Phase Extraction of Lead(II) Ions in Different Real Samples and their Determination with ICP-AES

2012· article· en· W2138103121 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Reza Pourjavid, Ali Akbari Sehat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Membrane and Separation Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDetection limitExtraction (chemistry)Inductively coupled plasmaSolid phase extractionInductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopyMembraneStripping (fiber)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyVolumetric flow rateEnrichment factorIonNuclear chemistryMaterials sciencePlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A solid phase extraction and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) for the determination of lead(II) ions with octadecyl-bonded silica membrane disks modified by 4-methyl-N-{2-(4-methylbenzothioyl)aminoethyl}benzenecarbothioamide (MMAB) was studied. Extraction efficiency, and the effects of parameters such as flow rate, pH, type and the least amount of acid for stripping of lead(II) from the modified disks and break through volume were examined. The maximum capacity of the membrane disks modified by 4.0 mg of MMAB used was found to be 527 ± 4 µg of lead(II) ions. The preconcentration factor is 440 (for 2200 mL water sample and flow rate of 12 mL min-1) and detection limit of the proposed method is 85.4 ng mL-1. The developed method was successfully applied to the determination of lead(II) ions in blood, spinach, bean, hair, milk, pepper and various water samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Membrane and Separation TechnologySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207