MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281699413 · doi:10.1002/slct.202200448

Aggregation‐Induced Quenching of Carbon Dots for Detection of Nitric oxide

2022· article· en· W4281699413 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Mutreja, Ajay Kumar, Shweta Sareen, Khushboo Pathania, Harshit Sandhu, Ramesh Kataria, Sandip V. Pawar, S.K. Mehta, Jeongwon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistrySelect · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon and Quantum Dots Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetection limitQuenching (fluorescence)NanomaterialsMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Dynamic light scatteringBiomoleculeCarbon fibersChemistryNuclear chemistryNanotechnologyNanoparticleFluorescenceChromatographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study reports the synthesis of three types of carbon dots (CDs) prepared using citric acid as a carbon source and three different biomolecules (L‐serine, L‐threonine, and adenine) individually as an amine source. The obtained nanomaterials were characterized by powder XRD, TEM, FTIR, 13 C NMR, distortionless enhancement by polarization transfer using a 135‐degree decoupler pulse (DEPT 135), dynamic light scattering (DLS), and Small‐Angle X‐ray Scattering (SAXS) techniques. After ensuring the formation of desired structures, prepared CDs were used for exploring the detection capabilities of different reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species. Following the screening of their detection capabilities specifically for nitric oxide, different sensing parameters viz the limit of detection, quenching constant, and interferences were evaluated. Among the synthesized CDs, the lowest detection limit of 0.1 μM was determined for the serine‐derived dots while 0.12 and 0.19 μM was obtained for adenine and threonine‐derived dots, respectively. Eventually, a possible sensing mechanism for the detection of NO by the prepared nanomaterials is proposed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistrySelectSame topicCarbon and Quantum Dots ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207