MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W418626142 · doi:10.15866/irebic.v3i3.1560

Extraction and Characterization of Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS) from Waste Sludge of Pulp and Paper Mill

2012· article· en· W418626142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Muhammad Pervaiz, Mohini Sain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Biophysical Chemistry (IREBIC) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
Topicbiodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracellular polymeric substancePaper millPulp and paper industrySodium hydroxideLigninChemistryExtraction (chemistry)Fourier transform infrared spectroscopyPulp millPulp (tooth)AdhesiveWaste managementChromatographyChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryEffluent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary sludge (SS) and mixed sludge (MS) from a Canadian paper mill were characterized, and investigated for extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) to explore the potential opportunity for value added utilization of waste paper sludge as wood adhesive. After basic characterization which showed the availability of significant amount of organic matter, further study of wood adhesive extenders were carried out through extraction of EPS by using 4000g  centrifugation, a physical control method,  and a chemical extraction  technique involving formaldehyde and sodium hydroxide reagents. Gravimetric analysis showed the chemical extraction technique as being efficient method by yielding up to 5 times more EPS compared to physical control method. SS sludge, as anticipated, contained significantly high amount of EPS compared to MS. Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR) studies on extracted EPS confirmed the presence of key functional groups related to potential adhesions like protein, glucose, lignin, and carbohydrates. The polymeric nature of EPS was further diagnosed through calorimetric studies

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Biophysical Chemistry (IREBIC)Same topicbiodegradable polymer synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207