Chemical and Spectroscopic Characterization of Peat Moss and Its Different Humic Fractions (Humin, Humic Acid and Fulvic Acid)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peat humin(p-Humin), humic acid(p-HA) and fulvic acid(p-FA) were isolated from Canadian Sphagnum peat moss by dissolution in 0.1M NaOH followed by acid precipitation. After purification cycles, they are characterized for their elemental compositions and, acid/base properties. Functionalities and carbon structures of the humic fractions were also characterized using FT-IR and solid state -NMR spectroscopy. Those results are compared with one another and with soil humic substances from literatures. Main purpose of this study was to present a chemical and spectroscopic characterization data of humic substance from peat moss needed to evaluate its environmental applicability. The relative proportions of the p-Humin, p-HA and p-FA in the peat moss was , respectively, based on the total organic matter content (). Elemental composition of p-Humin were found to be and had higher H/C and (N+O)/C ratio compared to those of p-HA() and p-FA(). Based on the analysis of pH titration data, there are two different types of acidic functional groups in the peat moss and its humic fractions and their proton exchange capacities(PEC, meq/g) were in the order p-FA(4.91) >p-HA(4.09) >p-Humin(2.38). IR spectroscopic results showed that the functionalities of the peat moss humic molecules are similar to those of soil humic substances, and carboxylic acid(-COOH) is main function group providing metal binding sites for Cd(II) sorption. Spectral features obtained from -NMR indicated that peat moss humic molecules have rather lower degree of humification, and that important structural differences exist between p-Humin and soluble humic fractions(p-HA and p-FA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".