MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307157184 · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00047

Binding Between Antibiotics and Polystyrene Nanoparticles Examined by NMR

2022· article· en· W4307157184 on OpenAlexaff
Saduni S. Arachchi, Stephanie P. Palma, Charlotte I. Sanders, Hui Xu, Rajshree Ghosh Biswas, Ronald Soong, André J. Simpson, Leah B. Casabianca

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Environmental Au · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Chemistry
KeywordsPolystyreneNanoparticleChemistryMoleculeLevofloxacinAntibioticsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOrganic chemistryPolymerBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elucidating the interactions between plastic nanoparticles and small molecules is important to understanding these interactions as they occur in polluted waterways. For example, plastic that breaks down into micro- and nanoscale particles will interact with small molecule pollutants that are also present in contaminated waters. Other components of natural water, such as dissolved organic matter, will also influence these interactions. Here we use a collection of complementary NMR techniques to examine the binding between polystyrene nanoparticles and three common antibiotics, belonging to a class of molecules that are expected to be common in polluted water. Through examination of proton NMR signal intensity, relaxation times, saturation-transfer difference (STD) NMR, and competition STD-NMR, we find that the antibiotics have binding strengths in the order amoxicillin < metronidazole ≪ levofloxacin. Levofloxacin is able to compete for binding sites, preventing the other two antibiotics from binding. The presence of tannic acid disrupts the binding between levofloxacin and the polystyrene nanoparticles, but does not influence the binding between metronidazole and these nanoparticles.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Environmental AuSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207