MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121888097 · doi:10.1039/d0an02215b

Optimization of gold nanorod arrays for surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) detection of atrazine

2021· article· en· W3121888097 on OpenAlexafffund
Najwan Albarghouthi, Presley MacMillan, Christa L. Brosseau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsNanorodAtrazineSurface-enhanced Raman spectroscopyRaman spectroscopyMaterials scienceNanotechnologySpectroscopyColloidal goldRaman scatteringNanoparticleOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been increasing concern over the widespread use of the herbicide atrazine which has been reported to have problematic side effects on local ecosystems. This has highlighted the need for rapid and accurate point-of-need assessment tools for analytical determination of herbicides in ground and surface waters. Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) is a sensitive vibrational spectroscopy technique which has recently been employed for the analysis of a variety of analytes in water, ranging from pharmaceuticals to pesticides. In this work, SERS sensors constructed using gold nanorod (AuNR) arrays are optimized and then utilized for the rapid and sensitive detection of atrazine. In this study, the effect of relative humidity on the self-assembly of gold nanorods into arrays was explored, and the SERS performance was assessed using para-aminothiophenol as a SERS probe. Once the SERS performance of the substrates was deemed optimal, the detection of atrazine was highlighted. This work represents the first time that relative humidity has been explored as an optimization strategy for controlled alignment of gold nanorods for SERS analysis of atrazine.

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207