MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Lithium Manganese Oxide on Lithium Detection in Microfluidic Electrochemical Sensor

2025· article· en· W4413320707 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bank, Shapour Jafargholinejad, Pouya Rezai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)ManganeseElectrochemistryElectrochemical gas sensorManganese oxideMaterials scienceOxideMicrofluidicsChemistryInorganic chemistryElectrodeNanotechnologyMetallurgyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel, low-cost and easy-to-fabricate Microfluidic Electrochemical Sensor (MES) capable of detecting LiCl-based lithium (Li) ions in water. The MES consisted of inexpensive Pressure Sensitive Adhesive (PSA) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) sheets to fabricate a curved microchannel over three carbon-based electrodes. The MES was tested with various concentrations of Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO) in 1 mL N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), mixed in a 1:1 mass ratio with Graphene Carbon Paste (GCP) to create the Li-specific electrodes. The electrodes formed in a mixture of 300 mg/mL LMO in NMP performed the best, with Cyclic Voltammetry (CV) currents indicating a reduction peak of$265 \ \mu \mathrm{A}$at 1.0 M LiCI and no significant reduction for competitive 1.0 M NaCl and KCl salts. These results demonstrate the MESs strong selectivity towards Li. Due to the use of low-cost and readily available materials, the MES used in this study has a high potential to be a reliable, portable, and efficient sensor for Li detection.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207