MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606717879 · doi:10.1002/aic.15767

Hydrophobic surface modification of FMSS and its application as effective sorbents for oil spill clean‐ups and recovery

2017· article· en· W2606717879 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwasola Oribayo, Qinmin Pan, Xianshe Feng, Garry L. Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSorbentSorptionOil spillWettingChemical engineeringContact angleSuperhydrophilicityAdsorptionPorosityMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceWaste managementChemistryPetroleum engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superhydrophobic sponge‐like materials are attracting more attention in recent years as potential sorbent materials for oil spill clean‐up. In this work, the authors report the incorporation of hydrophobic structural features into a superhydrophilic pristine formaldehyde‐melamine‐sodium bisulfite copolymer sponge (FMSS) by N‐acylation with a fatty acid derivative, for use as an oil sorbent in oil spill clean‐ups. This resulted in our ability to transform the surface properties of the sponge skeleton to superhydrophobic with a contact angle of 143°. The acylated FMSS (a‐FMSS) was shown to retain the interconnected porous structure, and was characterized with microscopic and spectroscopic analyses. Sorption experiments with engine oil and chloroform showed that a‐FMSS had a very high oil sorption capacity (amounting to 99 and 168.2 times its own weight respectively) than commercial nonwoven polypropylene sorbent. In this view, a‐FMSS is considered to be a promising oil sorbent for potential applications in large‐scale oil spill clean‐ups. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 63: 4090–4102, 2017

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 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207