MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766399507 · doi:10.1515/secm-2016-0382

Optimization of the PDMS/biochar nanocomposite membranes using the response surface methodology

2017· article· en· W2766399507 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Engineering of Composite Materials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane Separation and Gas Transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharMembraneMaterials sciencePolydimethylsiloxanePervaporationPyrolysisPermeationNanocompositeChemical engineeringComposite numberResponse surface methodologyComposite materialChromatographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To improve the separation performance of the polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)/bark biochar (BB) nanocomposite membranes used for alcohol/water separation, the preparation conditions of these composite membranes were analyzed and optimized. In this study, we investigated the following preparation parameters: the BB pyrolysis temperature, the weight ratio of the silane coupling agent (KH-550) to bark biochar (BB), and the BB loading amount. The regression equations were established between these three preparation parameters and the final pervaporation (PV) performance characteristics of the composite membranes. The membranes performed the best under the following optimal preparation conditions: a BB pyrolysis temperature of 407°C; a silane coupling reagent/BB weight ratio of 0.86, and a BB loading amount of 3.36 wt%. According to the results of the regression analysis, a maximum permeation flux of 221.2 g·m −2 ·h −1 and a maximum selective factor of 21.3 was obtained when the feed temperature for the 5 wt% alcohol solution was set at 40°C.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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