Liquid Chromatography/Fluorescence Method for Emamectin B1a and Desmethylamino-Emamectin B1a Residues in Lobster Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A liquid chromatography (LC)/fluorescence procedure was validated for emamectin (EM B1a) and desmethylamino-emamectin (DMAEM B1a) residues in lobster tissue. They were extracted by shaking and sonicating with 1% ammonium acetate-methanol in the presence of sand. The extract was concentrated, partitioned with ethyl acetate, and cleaned up on a propylsulfonic cation exchange cartridge. The analytes were eluted from the cartridge with 5% ammonium hydroxide-methyl acetate, the eluate was concentrated, and the solvent was changed to dry 20% ethyl acetate-acetonitrile before derivatization with trifluoroacetic anhydride-N-methylimidizole. The products were analyzed by LC-fluorescence, and no interference [>limit of detection (LOD)] was detected in the control samples. Lobster tissues fortified with EM B1a and DMAEM B1a at 0.5, 5, 10, 25, and 50 ng/g gave overall mean recoveries of 96.7 +/- 12.4%, relative standard deviation (RSD) = 12.8% for EM B1 and 83.6 +/- 12.1%, RSD = 14.5% for DMAEM B1a. Regression analysis of the calibration data gave slopes of 0.90 (EM B1a) and 0.71 (DMAEM B1a) with an r2 = 0.99 for both compounds. The calculated LOD and limit of quantification (LOQ) for EM B1a were 1.10 and 3.32 ng/g, respectively, and for DMAEM B1a were 0.762 and 2.31 ng/g, respectively. Residues of EM B1a and DMAEM B1a in fortified lobster tissues stored at -20 degrees C showed that residues were stable for 10-12 months. No loss of EM B1a and DMAEM B1a residues was observed after 3 freeze/thaw cycles of fortified tissue in a 5-day period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".