Correlation of Stoichiometries for Rb<sup>+</sup> Extraction Determined by Mass Spectrometry and Electrochemistry at Liquid|Liquid Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemical extraction of rubidium at micro water|1,2-dichloroethane (w|DCE) and water|room-temperature ionic liquid (w|RTIL) interfaces housed at the tip of a 25-μm capillary using octyl(phenyl)-N,N-diisobutylcarbamoylmethylphosphine oxide (CMPO) in the TRans Uranic EXtraction (TRUEX) process, was examined. Rubidium is of great interest in a modern spent nuclear fuel cycle as well as toward myocardial perfusion imaging utilizing (82)Sr/(82)Rb isotopic generators. The ligand-to-metal stoichiometry (n:1) and overall complexation constant (β) for interfacial complexation reactions induced by an applied potential were determined by the interfacial electrochemistry. One stoichiometry, n = 2, was observed at the w|DCE interface with β = 3.3 × 10(4). In the w|RTIL system, two rubidium salt solutions were employed: RbNO(3) and RbNO(3) plus Rb(2)SO(4). The former demonstrated a stoichiometry of n = 2 and β = 2.4 × 10(6), while the latter showed n = 4 and β = 3.3 × 10(12). These stoichiometries of the reaction were confirmed by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, using an emulsion generated by shaking water and DCE phases containing the dissolved metal and ligand, respectively. Both RbCMPO(+) and RbCMPO(2)(+) complexes were observed. The influence of ion pair interactions in this system will be discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".