Comparison of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry with Electron Ionization and Negative-Ion Chemical Ionization for Analyses of Pesticides at Trace Levels in Atmospheric Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of detection limits of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in selected ion monitoring (SIM) with gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode with both electron ionization (EI) and negative-ion chemical ionization (NCI) are presented for over 50 pesticides ranging from organochlorines (OCs), organophosphorus pesticides (OPs) and pre-emergent herbicides used in the Canadian prairies (triallate, trifluralin, ethalfluralin). The developed GC-EI/SIM, GC-NCI/SIM, and GC-NCI/SRM are suitable for the determination of pesticides in air sample extracts at concentrations <100 pg microL(-1) (<100 pg m(-3) in air). No one method could be used to analyze the range of pre-emergent herbicides, OPs, and OCs investigated. In general GC-NCI/SIM provided the lowest method detection limits (MDLs commonly 2.5-10 pg microL(-1)) along with best confirmation (<25% RSD of ion ratio), while GC-NCI/SRM is recommended for use where added selectivity or confirmation is required (such as parathion-ethyl, tokuthion, carbofenothion). GC-EI/SRM at concentration <100 pg microL(-1) was not suitable for most pesticides. GC-EI/SIM was more prone to interference issues than NCI methods, but gave good sensitivity (MDLs 1-10 pg microL(-1)) for pesticides with poor NCI response (OPs: sulfotep, phorate, aspon, ethion, and OCs: alachlor, aldrin, perthane, and DDE, DDD, DDT).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".