MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325056412 · doi:10.1021/sc500479b

Development of a Recyclable Remediation System for Gaseous BTEX: Combination of Iron Oxides Nanoparticles Adsorbents and Electrochemistry

2014· article· en· W2325056412 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhenzhong Hu, Maximilien Beuret, Hassan Abbas Khan, Parisa A. Ariya

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBTEXAdsorptionNanoparticleEthylbenzeneChemical engineeringElectrochemistryHematiteMaterials scienceStripping (fiber)TolueneChemistryInorganic chemistryNanotechnologyElectrodeOrganic chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We designed a two-step green technique to remove and recycle selected gaseous air pollutants. The first step includes the assessment of adsorption efficiencies of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) on magnetite, hematite, and their composite surfaces. Improvement of the synthesis method led to BTEX adsorption (>85%; 200 ppmv) on 1.0 g of nanoparticles within a time scale of minutes. The second element included the design of an electrochemical reactor for the regeneration of used nanoparticles. NaOH showed superior performance as an electrolyte in comparison to NaCl and Na 2 CO 3 . The stripping efficiency for cathodic regeneration was higher than the anodic one. Under optimized conditions, the stripping efficiency was up to 85%. Iron oxides nanoparticles were regenerated (∼90%). Using high-resolution transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, NanoScan, and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller, selected physical and chemical properties of nanosurfaces were analyzed, revealing that the physical properties of nanoparticles remained unchanged during the regeneration process.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Sustainable Chemistry & EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207