Study of natural adsorbent chitosan and derivatives for the removal of caffeine from water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adsorption of caffeine was evaluated using natural adsorbent chitosan and three derivates of the material. Raw, H2O2 pre-treated, and a chemically altered chitosan were compared to activated carbon. Activated carbon was found to have a high affinity for caffeine (98% removal) while raw chitosan performed poorly with an average adsorption of 15.9%. Batch tests in acidic and basic conditions as well as increasing dosage did not have an effect on the performance. Chemical modifications to chitosan included calcinated mesoporous materials and non-calcinated materials, both of which increased chitosan adsorption of caffeine to 29 and 40%, respectively. Hydrogen peroxide pre-treated chitosan performed best of chitosan-based adsorbents, and reached a 46% removal of caffeine in batch adsorption tests. The majority of the adsorbents had low correlation to the Langmuir, Freundlich, and Redlich–Peterson isotherm models. However, data were sufficient to compare adsorption capacity for caffeine among activated carbon, chitosan, and chitosan derivatives.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".