MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163735434 · doi:10.1080/00958970008024561

A POTENTIOMETRIC STUDY OF METAL CHELATES WITH PENTAETHYLENEHEXAAMINEOCTAACETIC ACID

2000· article· en· W2163735434 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Letkeman, Martin T. Lemaire, Ichiro Murase, Ramunas J. Motekaitis, Arthur E. Martell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coordination Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPotentiometric titrationProtonationStability constants of complexesInorganic chemistryMetalChelationDenticityIonic strengthMetal ions in aqueous solutionAqueous solutionLigand (biochemistry)TitrationCopperIonPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The protonation constants of pentaethylenehexaamineoctaacetic acid, PHOA, were determined by potentiometric titration in aqueous solution at an ionic strength of 0.10 M KNO3 and at 25°C. The formation constants of various metal-PHOA complexes were also obtained by titrating mixtures of metal to ligand in molar ratios of 1:1 and 2:1. Calculations were performed with the computer program BEST. Individual formation constants are reported for Co(II), Ni(II), Cu(II), Zn(II), Cd(II), Hg(II) and Pb(II) with PHOA as well as their related protonated species. The stabilities of the 1:1 and 2:1 complexes are similar in many respects to complexes formed with tetraethylenepentaamineheptaacetic acid (TPHA). The similarities in the stabilities of both the 1:1 and 2:1 complexes with PHOA and those with TPHA are explained in terms of ligand denticity and steric effects. Mercury(II)-PHOA complexes exhibited the highest formation constants, followed by copper(II)-PHOA complexes which had higher log K ML's than those for Co(II), Ni(II), Zn(II), Cd(II) and Pb(II).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coordination ChemistrySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207