MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730977996 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v20i3.261

Voltammetric determination of copper and zinc in water using a Ruthenium bipyridyl/Nafion-modified indium tin oxide-coated glass electrode

2017· article· en· W2730977996 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shirley Palisoc, Michelle Natividad, Craig Egan Allistair Dumanon Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNafionZincAnodic stripping voltammetryCopperIndium tin oxideCyclic voltammetryTap waterInorganic chemistryIndiumVoltammetryMaterials scienceElectrodeRutheniumChemistryNuclear chemistryElectrochemistryMetallurgyCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemically-modified Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) coated glass substrates were fabricated by depositing Nafion thin films doped with tris (2,2’-bipyridyl) ruthenium(II) dichloride hexahydrate via drop coating deposition technique. The Nafion volume concentration in the film is 1% (v/v) and the mediator concentration is 5 mg per 1 mL Nafion. The chemically-modified electrodes were characterized by cyclic voltammetry (CV) and were used as working electrodes to detect varying concentrations of copper (Cu2+) and zinc (Zn2+) in a 0.1 M NaCl supporting electrolyte solution via Anodic Stripping Voltammetry (ASV). Cu2+ and Zn2+ ions were successfully determined by ASV. The limits of detection for Cu2+ and Zn2+ were 0.1 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively. The modified electrodes were used to determine the presence of Cu2+ and Zn2+ in different real water samples. The presence of Cu2+ was successfully determined in deep well, lake, and tap water samples, while the presence of Zn2+ was successfully determined in sea and tap water samples. Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) results confirm the presence of Cu2+ and Zn2+ in the samples.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical SystemsSame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207