MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612104406 · doi:10.1002/jat.3478

Adhesive force between graphene nanoscale flakes and living biological cells

2017· article· en· W2612104406 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Radwan Al Faouri, Ralph Henry, Alexandru S. Biris, Rob Sleezer, Gregory J. Salamo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Toxicology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationHamilton Health Sciences FoundationArkansas Research Alliance
KeywordsGrapheneAdhesiveNanoscopic scaleMaterials scienceAdhesionAtomic force microscopyNanotechnologyComposite materialSiliconOptoelectronicsLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a measurement technique that quantifies the adhesive force between multi-layers of graphene flakes and the cell wall of live Escherichia coli cells using atomic force microscopy (AFM) in-fluid Peak Force- Quantitative Nanomechanical Mapping mode. To measure the adhesive force, we made use of the negative charge of E. coli cells to allow them to stick to positively charged surfaces, such as glass or silicon, that were covered by poly-L-Lysine. With this approach, cells were held in place for AFM characterization. Both pristine graphene (PG) flakes and functionalized graphene (FG) flakes were put on the E. coli cells and measurements of lateral size, flake thickness, and adhesion were made. Using this approach, the measured values of the adhesive force between multi-layers of graphene flakes (total thickness of 50 nm) and E. coli was determined to be equal or greater than 431 ± 65pN for (PG) and 694 ± 98pN for the (FG). More interestingly, the adhesive force of a graphene flake (thickness 1.3 nm) with the cell is determined to be equal or greater than 38.2 ± 16.4pN for the (PG) and 34.8 ± 15.3pN for the (FG). These interaction values can play an important role in determining and understanding the possible toxicity of graphene flakes. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ToxicologySame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207