MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Colorimetric Detection of Mercury Ions in Water with Capped Silver Nanoprisms

2019· preprint· en· W3123160680 on OpenAlexafffund
Fouzia Tanvir, Atif Yaqub, Shazia Tanvir, Ran An, William A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Detection limitReagentChemistryIonNanoparticleMetal ions in aqueous solutionGalvanic cellSilver nanoparticleNanotechnologyInorganic chemistryMaterials scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emission of mercury (II) from coal combustion and other industrial processes continues to be a concern and have local impact on water resources.  The detection of these ions in water with sensitive but rapid testing methods is desirable for environmental screening and fieldwork.  Nanoparticles of various chemistries have shown promise for this purpose, as they can be used in simple colorimetric analyses. Silver nanoprisms were chemically synthesized resulting in a blue reagent solution, that transitioned towards yellow and colorless solutions when exposed to Hg2+ ions at various concentrations. A rapid galvanic reduction of Hg2+ onto the nanoprism surfaces is apparently responsible for a change in shape towards spherical nanoparticles, leading to the change in color. There were no interferences by other metal ions in solution, and pH had minimal effect in the range of 6.5 to 9.8. The silver nanoprism reagent provided a detection limit of approximately 0.5 µM (100 µg/L) for mercury (II), which compares favorably with other nanoparticle-based techniques. Further optimization may reduce this detection limit.

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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207