MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High Yield Synthesis and Application of Magnetite Nanoparticles (Fe3O4)

2020· article· en· W3025434978 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Wroblewski, Tunde Volford, Blake Martos, Jurek Samoluk, Perry A. Martos

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetochemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicIron oxide chemistry and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsMagnetiteAqueous solutionFerrousNanoparticleParticle sizeChemistryNuclear chemistryYield (engineering)FerricExtraction (chemistry)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceChromatographyInorganic chemistryNanotechnologyMetallurgyOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetite nanoparticles (Fe3O4), average particle size of 12.9 nm, were synthesized de novo from ferrous and ferric iron salt solutions (total iron salt concentration of 3.8 mM) using steady-state headspace NH3(g), 3.3% v/v, at room temperature and pressure, without mechanical agitation, resulting in >99.9% yield. Nanoparticles size distributions were based on enumeration of TEM images and chemical compositions analyzed by: XRD, EDXRF, and FT-IR; super-paramagnetic properties were analyzed by magnetization saturation (74 emu/g). Studies included varying headspace [NH3(g)] (1.6, 3.3, 8.4% v/v), and total iron concentrations (1.0 mM, 3.8 mM, 10.0 mM, and >>10 mM). An application of the unmodified synthesized magnetite nanoparticles included analyses of tetracycline’s (50, 100, 200, 300, and 400 ppb) in aqueous, which was compared to the same tetracycline concentrations prepared in aqueous synthesis suspension with >97% extraction, analyzed with LC-MS/MS.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetochemistrySame topicIron oxide chemistry and applicationsFrench-language works237,207