MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147530318 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2021.1.007

Dates (Phoenix Dactylifera L.) extracts derived nanoparticles and its application

2021· article· en· W3147530318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Syed Sauban Ghani, Iqbal Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoenix dactyliferaChemistryNanoparticleNanotechnologyGreen chemistryExtraction (chemistry)Reducing agentBiochemical engineeringCatalysisCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryMaterials sciencePalm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-mediated green synthesis of metallic nanoparticles (NPs) has become the most deserving alternative to chemical synthesis as this process is economical and energy-efficient, and environmentally benign. For the last twenty to thirty years, different plant sources are being utilized for the fabrication of green NPs, and few of them have used the extract of Phoenix Dactylifera L. as reducing, capping, or stabilizing agents. This review provides a detailed outline of the extraction method from various parts of dates and their synthesis with different metal salts using these extracts. The applied techniques of characterization and application of these nanoparticles have also been thoroughly discussed. The phytochemicals present in the extract were responsible for reducing the metals. Except for a few, all the investigations reported the spherical NPs but have variations in their size. These NPs have high prospects in applications such as antimicrobial, anticancer, antioxidant, and catalytic activities. This work may lead the path for additional advancement in this field, and researchers may take up the future work for the large scale production of NPs and their application using date extracts.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207