MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413811247 · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.108574

Microfluidic electrochemical sensor with lead ion-imprinted polymer membrane for selective trace lead detection in water

2025· article· en· W4413811247 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayobami Elisha Oseyemi, Pouya Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Process Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsLead (geology)MembraneMicrofluidicsElectrochemistryTRACE (psycholinguistics)Molecularly imprinted polymerIonChemistryPolymerNanotechnologyMaterials scienceElectrodeSelectivityOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead contamination in water remains a critical global concern due to its toxicity and persistence. We present a microfluidic sensor that integrates a stand-alone lead ion-imprinted polymer (Pb-IIP) membrane for selective lead detection. Synthesized in situ with Pb(II) as the template, methacrylic acid as the monomer, and 8-hydroxyquinoline as the ligand, the membrane acts as a selective affinity element embedded between non-functionalized electrodes. Leveraging imprinted cavity sites and the Pb-IIP's chemical affinity, the integrated sensor demonstrated heightened lead ion sensitivity, achieving a detection limit of 7.3 ppb and consistent quantification up to 100 ppm. Detection responses were 6.1-fold higher than the membrane-less sensor, 1.5-fold higher than the MAA-based non-imprinted polymer (NIP) sensor, and 13-fold higher than the acrylamide (AAM)-based NIP sensor. The Pb-IIP membrane also differentiated Pb(II) from Cd(II) and Zn(II), with Pb(II) responses being 12.5 % to 69.4 % higher than other ions. Validation with unfiltered municipal tap water yielded recoveries between 96.6 % and 109.0 %, with relative standard deviations below 7 %. These results demonstrate regulatory-relevant detection performance using a low-cost, easily fabricated platform suitable for future adaptation to portable, field-deployable systems.

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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Process EngineeringSame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207