MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W173525698 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/85.5.1136

Routine, High-Sensitivity, Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Determination of Total Mercury in Foods after Low-Temperature Digestion

2002· article· en· W173525698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Dabeka, Peter Bradley, Arthur D Mckenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAtomic absorption spectroscopyMercury (programming language)Cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectroscopyDetection limitChromatographyChlorideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometric method was developed for the subnanogram-per-gram determination of total Hg in a wide variety of foods. Foods were weighed into 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes and dried without charring at 55 degrees C in a circulating oven. Samples were then digested at 58 degrees C with HNO3, HCl, and H2O2. After matrix modification with solutions of 2% Mg(NO3)2, 0.01% Triton X-100, and Cu(II) at 10 microg/mL, samples were analyzed by using a CeTAC Technologies M-6000A dedicated Hg analyzer. Based on a 2 g sample weight, the detection limit of the method over 12 batches averaged 0.30 ng/g wet weight and ranged from 0.03 to 0.6 ng/g. Recoveries of Hg added to 17 different foods, analyzed in a routine manner, averaged 97%, and individual recoveries ranged from 77 to 107%. Accuracy was confirmed by analysis of 7 biological reference materials from the National Research Council of Canada and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Stabilization of low concentrations of Hg in solutions containing no sample was required to prevent loss of Hg from blanks. In a comparison of NaCl, potassium dichromate, and Au(II), chloride was much more effective for stabilization than the other two, and HCl was used for subsequent stabilization.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207