Needle trap extraction for <scp>GC</scp> analysis of formic and acetic acids in aqueous solution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formic and acetic acids are ubiquitous in the environment, food, and most of the natural products. Extraction of the acids from aqueous solution is required for their isotope analysis by the gas chromatography-isotope ratio mass spectrometry. To this objective, we have previously developed a purge-and-trap technique using the dynamic solid-phase microextraction technology, the NeedlEX. The extraction efficiency, however, remains unexamined. Here, we address this question using the flame ionization detector and isotope ratio mass spectrometer while comparing it with that of the CAR/PDMS fiber. The results show that the NeedlEX is applicable at a wide range of concentration through coordination of purge volume given the minimum amount 3.7 ng and 1.8 ng of formic and acetic, respectively, is extracted. The efficiency of NeedlEX was 6-7 times lower than the fiber at 1000 μg/mL depending on the analyte. It is, however, superior to the latter at 10 μg/mL or less owing to its lower detection limit. The extraction efficiency of both acids is equivalent in molar amount. This is, however, disguised by the different response of the flame ionization detector. The isotope ratio mass spectrometor overcomes this problem but is compromised by relatively large errors. These results are particularly useful for isotopic analysis of carboxylic acids.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it