MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385851466 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.3c01462

Performance Evaluation of Extraction Coatings with Different Sorbent Particles and Binder Composition

2023· article· en· W4385851466 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled Murtada, Emir Nazdrajić, Janusz Pawliszyn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCoatingSorbentSorptionChemical engineeringExtraction (chemistry)PolyacrylonitrileParticle (ecology)ChemistrySolid-phase microextractionComposite materialMaterials scienceChromatographyPolymerOrganic chemistryAdsorptionGas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binders are critical components used in the preparation of a range of extraction devices, including solid-phase microextraction (SPME) devices. While the main role of a binder is to affix the sorbent particles to the selected support, it is critical to select the optimal binder to ensure that it does not negatively impact the coating’s particle sorption capability. This work presents the first comprehensive investigation of the interactions between binders and solid sorbent particles as these interactions can significantly impact the performance of the coating. Specifically, the findings presented herein provide a better understanding of the extraction mechanisms of composite coatings and new rules for predicting the particle adhesion forces and binder distribution in the coating. The influence of binder chemistry on coating performance is investigated by examining a selection of the most used binders, namely, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), poly(vinylidene difluoride) (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene amorphous fluoroplastics (PTFE AF 2400), and polybenzimidazole (PBI). The solid particles (e.g., hydrophilic–lipophilic balanced (HLB) and C 18 ) used in this work were selected for their ability to provide optimal extraction coverage for a broad range of analytes. The results show that PDMS does not change the properties of the solid particles and that the binder occupies a negligible volume due to shrinking after polymerization, resulting in the solid particles making up most of the coating volume. Hence, the coating sorption characteristics correspond closely to the properties of the selected solid particles. On the other hand, the results also showed that PTFE AF 2400 can interact with the active surface of the sorbent, leading to the deactivation of the sorbent particles. Therefore, the extraction performance and permeability coefficients decrease as the size of the penetrant increases, indicating a rigid porous structure. The results of this study can aid in the optimization of SPME devices as they provide reference values that can be used to determine the optimal binder and the sorbent affinity for the targeted compounds. Finally, the present work also provides the broader scientific community with a strategy for investigating the properties of sorbent particle/binder structures and defines the characteristics of a good coating/membrane by analyzing all parameters such as kinetics, thermodynamic equilibria, and morphology.

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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207