MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399885967 · doi:10.3390/molecules29132962

Revisiting the Determination of the Degree of Deacetylation Using Potentiometric Titration: A New Equation for Modified Chitosan

2024· article· en· W4399885967 on OpenAlexafffund
Ons Amamou, Sarah Kefil, Jean‐Philippe Denis, Taoufik Boubaker, Sébastien Cardinal

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaMitacsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsPotentiometric titrationChitosanAcetylationDegree (music)TitrationChemistryChemical engineeringChromatographyOrganic chemistryEngineeringPhysicsBiochemistryIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitosan is a biopolymer that can be subjected to a variety of chemical modifications to generate new materials. The properties of modified chitosan are affected by its degree of deacetylation (DDA), which corresponds to the percentage of D-glucosamine monomers in its polymeric structure. Potentiometric titration is amongst the simplest, most readily available, and most cost-effective methods of determining the DDA. However, this method often suffers from a lack of precision, especially for modified chitosan resins. This is in large part because the equation used to calculate the DDA does not consider the molecular weight of the chemically modified monomeric units. In this paper, we introduce a new equation that is especially suited for modified chitosan bearing three different types of monomers. To test this equation, we prepared naphthalene–chitosan resins and subjected them to potentiometric titration. Our results show that our new equation, which is truer to the real structure of the polymeric chains, gives higher DDA values than those of the routinely used equations. These results show that the traditional equations underestimate the DDA of modified chitosan resins.

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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207