MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605177194 · doi:10.1149/ma2017-01/12/793

Electrochemical Regeneration of Reduced Graphene Oxide - Metal Oxide Composite Adsorbents

2017· article· en· W2605177194 on OpenAlexaff
Edward P.L. Roberts, Farbod Sharif

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneOxideElectrochemistryComposite numberAdsorptionMaterials scienceMetalRegeneration (biology)Graphene oxide paperChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryChemistryNanotechnologyMetallurgyComposite materialElectrodeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduced graphene oxide (RGO) has been demonstrated to be an excellent adsorbent for many aqueous contaminants, including dissolved organics 1 . A challenge for practical application remains the disposal of the loaded adsorbent, with regeneration the most desirable outcome. Anodic electrochemical regeneration has successfully been applied for graphite flake adsorbent for organic contaminants 2 , however oxidation of the graphite has been observed 3 . In this study, anodic electrochemical regeneration of RGO and RGO metal oxide composites has been evaluated. Rapid corrosion of RGO was found occur during electrochemical regeneration, so that the reuse of the RGO was not possible after only a few cycles. The addition of metal oxide nanoparticles of metal oxides to the RGO surface was found to lead to more efficient oxidation adsorbed contaminants and almost no corrosion of the RGO was detected. References Hongmei Sun, Linyuan Cao, Lehui Lu (2011) Nano Research 4 , pp 550-562. SN Hussain, EPL Roberts, HMA Asghar, AK Campen, NW Brown (2013) Electrochimica Acta 92 , pp 20-30. K Nkrumah-Amoako, EPL Roberts, NW Brown, SM Holmes (2014) Electrochimica Acta 135 , pp 568-577.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalFrench-language works237,207