MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896204203 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.8b01871

Graphene Oxide–Chitosan Composite Material for Treatment of a Model Dye Effluent

2018· article· en· W2896204203 on OpenAlexafffund
Mina Sabzevari, Duncan Cree, Lee D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGrapheneChitosanOxideComposite numberEffluentMaterials scienceChemical engineeringComposite materialNanotechnologyWaste managementEngineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Graphene oxide (GO) was cross-linked with chitosan to yield a composite (GO-LCTS) with variable morphology, enhanced surface area, and notably high methylene blue (MB) adsorption capacity. The materials were structurally characterized using thermogravimetric analysis and spectroscopic methods (X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and 13C solid-state NMR) to support that cross-linking occurs between the amine groups of chitosan and the −COOH groups of GO. Equilibrium swelling studies provide support for the enhanced structural stability of GO-cross-linked materials over the synthetic precursors. Scanning electron microscopy studies reveal the enhanced surface area and variable morphology of the cross-linked GO materials, along with equilibrium and kinetic uptake results with MB dye in aqueous media, revealing greater uptake of GO-LCTS composites over pristine GO. The monolayer uptake capacity (Qm; mg g–1) with MB reveals twofold variation for Qm, where GO-LCTS (402.6 mg g–1) > GO (286.9 mg g–1). The kinetic uptake profiles of MB follow a pseudo-second-order trend, where the GO composite shows more rapid uptake over GO. This study reveals that the sorption properties of GO are markedly improved upon formation of a GO–chitosan composite. The facile cross-linking strategy of GO reveals that its physicochemical properties are tunable and versatile for a wider field of application for contaminant removal, especially over multiple adsorption–desorption cycles when compared against pristine GO in its highly dispersed nanoparticle form.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations162
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207