MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980677341 · doi:10.1039/b714884d

Speciation/fractionation of nickel in airborne particulate matter: Improvements in the Zatka sequential leaching procedure

2008· article· en· W1980677341 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce R. Conard, Nelson Zelding, Gary T. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNickelLeaching (pedology)FractionationSulfideChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMetalEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyChromatographyMaterials scienceSoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modifications are reported to the sequential leaching analytical method for nickel speciation/fractionation specified by Zatka so that larger sample masses can be analyzed. Improvements have been made in the completeness of the sulfide/metallic separation during the peroxide-citrate leach step by use of a larger volume of leachant, a longer leach duration and an orbital shaker. Minimal extraction of metallic nickel in this prolonged sulfidic nickel extraction has been confirmed. An increase in the number of samples analyzed simultaneously using these modifications has resulted in substantial productivity improvements and concomitant lower costs. It is critical for practitioners of sequential leaching techniques to recognize potential limitations and to use professional judgment when interpreting results. For example, results obtained may not be biologically relevant in assessing health risks; the acts of sampling and storage may result in changes in fractionation with time; surface coatings/films may alter the ability of a leachant to react with the target compound; and leaching behaviours may be different for samples differing only in particle size distributions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental MonitoringSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207