MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416703119 · doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2025.108676

Copper-chitosan modified with Graphene oxide adsorbent for dispersive micro solid phase extraction of traces nickel from water and food samples

2025· article· en· W4416703119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Özgür Özalp, Mariamo Issufo, Mustafa Soylak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Composition and Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErciyes Üniversitesi
KeywordsDetection limitAdsorptionCertified reference materialsExtraction (chemistry)Solid phase extractionGrapheneAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study presents a new insight into separation of Ni (II) by preconcentration method from water and food samples prior to atomic flame absorption spectrometry analysis. A Cu-chitosan modified Graphene oxide adsorbent was used for micro-solid phase extraction of Ni (II). The synthesized nanocomposite was subjected to characterization by FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy), XRD (X-ray diffraction), FESEM (Field emission scanning electron microscope), SEM-EDX (Scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray analysis), TGA (thermogravimetric analysis) and BET (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) analysis to confirm the qualitative characteristics of the material prior to extraction process. Crucial analytical parameters such as pH, adsorbent dosage, adsorption studies and sample volume were investigated and optimized. The quantitative recovery and Relative standard deviation below 5% were obtained. The Limit of detection (LOD) and Limit of quantification (LOQ) were 0.072 mg kg -1 and 0.239 mg kg -1 respectively. To determine the greenness of the process two analytical parameters were tested, namely, analytical GREENness and AGREEprep, resulting in 0.73 and 0.70 respective grades. The proposed method presents a moderate eco-friendly and facile process. The preconcentration factor obtained for Ni (II) was 40. To validate the effectiveness of this work, the dµ-SPE method was applied to two different standard reference materials, BCR-701 lake sediment (Belgium) and TMDA-54-6 (Canada) certified water reference material.

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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food Composition and AnalysisSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207