MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210699029 · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.107310

The effect of foaming additives on acrylic acid/acrylamide hydrogels

2022· article· en· W4210699029 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann Pille, Marie‐Josée Dumont, Jason R. Tavares, Ranjan Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of environmental chemical engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSelf-healing hydrogelsCopperCadmiumAcrylamideAdsorptionAcrylic acidChemical engineeringChemistrySwellingFoaming agentMetal ions in aqueous solutionNickelMetalNuclear chemistryPolymer chemistryPolymerPorosityOrganic chemistryCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical and chemical properties of hydrogels are greatly dictated by their composition. In this study, modifications were brought to the macroscopic structure of hydrogels using foaming additives, and their effects on the swelling capacity and heavy metal adsorption were investigated. Significant differences in swelling capacities were found for hydrogels synthesized with a foaming agent and a foam stabilizer (257 g/g), with a foaming agent without foam stabilizer (195 g/g), or without any additives (182 g/g). The study compared the ion removal capacity for copper (II), cadmium (II), and nickel (II) under competitive and non-competitive conditions. The use of a foaming agent significantly increased the ion removal capacity of the hydrogels, from 54 to 93 mg/g cadmium, from 75 mg/g to 104 mg/g copper, and from 48 mg/g to 80 mg/g nickel. Under competitive conditions, the hydrogels preferentially removed cadmium > copper > nickel. However, maximum removal decreased for individual heavy metals under competitive conditions.

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of environmental chemical engineeringSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207