Electrospray-Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Reference Carboxylic Acids and Athabasca Oil Sands Naphthenic Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naphthenic acids (NAs) are complex mixtures of naturally occurring acyclic and cyclic aliphatic carboxylic acids that are responsible for the toxicity of the water in the tailings ponds associated with the recovery of bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands. NAs are difficult to analyze due to their complexity and the lack of commercially available NA standards. This paper describes the use of negative ion electrospray ionization mass spectrometry for the analysis of NAs. Model carboxylic acids, alone and in mixture, afforded mass spectral signal intensities that were highly dependent on extractor and cone voltages and on molecular structure. These effects were also observed for authentic NAs. Under conditions that were close to optimal for all the model compounds, their calibration sensitivities varied by a factor of <2, and there were minimal interactions when the model compounds were examined in mixture. Under the same conditions, the authentic NAs showed apparent congener distributions similar to those observed previously by GC/MS for derivatized NAs. The similar calibration sensitivities among congeners allowed the use of the standard addition method to determine the approximate absolute concentrations of NA congeners in an authentic sample.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".