MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413816726 · doi:10.3390/nano15171330

A Mean Field Poisson–Boltzmann Theory Assessment of Copper Oxide Nanosheets Interaction Potential in Physiological Fluids

2025· article· en· W4413816726 on OpenAlexafffund
Mumuni Amadu, Nafisat Motunrayo Raheem, Adango Miadonye

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCape Breton University
KeywordsPoisson–Boltzmann equationCopperMean field theoryPoisson distributionField (mathematics)Statistical physicsCopper oxideMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsCondensed matter physicsMetallurgyStatisticsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times, copper oxide nanosheets (CONSs) have shown a broad spectrum of industrial uses due to their unique properties, including high electrical conductivity, surface-enhanced catalytic activity, etc. Therefore, industrial processes involved in their manufacture can give rise to airborne particulates. Several in vivo studies have reported toxicity of these nanoparticles due to their interactions with biological molecules. Generally, literature-based assessment of their toxicity has centered on experimental findings. In this paper, we report for the first time, trend in CONSs interactions in intracellular and extracellular fluids, using the Nonlinear Mean Field Poisson-Boltzmann theory. Our theoretical prediction for zeta potential in the extracellular fluid environment align with published values in the literature. Based on this theoretical approach, we also demonstrate that double layer disjoining pressure due to interacting double layers of CONSs is generally higher in intracellular fluids. The findings of our theoretical approach highlight the importance of predicting the extent of cellular uptake potential of CONSs in organs that are prone to such airborne environmental particulates.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207