MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985490102 · doi:10.1255/ejms.583

Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Chemical Warfare Agents and Their Degradation Products in Soil and Synthetic Samples

2003· article· en· W1985490102 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. D’Agostino, James R. Hancock, C. L. Chenier

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Mass Spectrometry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganosulfur compoundsChemistryChemical Warfare AgentsMass spectrometryElectrospray ionizationChromatographyMass spectrumChemical ionizationDART ion sourceElectrosprayGas chromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SulfurElectron ionizationOrganic chemistryIonizationIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A packed capillary liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS) method was developed for the identification of chemical warfare agents, their degradation products and related compounds in synthetic tabun samples and in soil samples collected from a former mustard storage site. A number of organophosphorus and organosulfur compounds that had not been previously characterized were identified, based on acquired high-resolution ESI-MS data. At lower sampling cone voltages, the ESI mass spectra were dominated by protonated, sodiated and protonated acetonitrile adducts and/or their dimers that could be used to confirm the molecular mass of each compound. Structural information was obtained by inducing product ion formation in the ESI interface at higher sampling cone voltages. Representative ESI-MS mass spectra for previously uncharacterized compounds were incorporated into a database as part of an on-going effort in chemical warfare agent detection and identification. The same samples were also analyzed by capillary column gas chromatography (GC)-MS in order to compare an established method with LC-ESI-MS for chemical warfare agent identification. Analysis times and full-scanning sensitivities were similar for both methods, with differences being associated with sample matrix, ease of ionization and compound volatility. GC-MS would be preferred for organic extracts and must be used for the determination of mustard and relatively non-polar organosulfur degradation products, including 1,4- thioxane and 1,4-dithiane, as these compounds do not ionize during ESI-MS. Diols, formed following hydrolysis of mustard and longer-chain sulfur vesicants, may be analyzed using both methods with LC-ESI-MS providing improved chromatographic peak shape. Aqueous samples and extracts would, typically, be analyzed by LC-ESI-MS, since these analyses may be conducted directly without the need for additional sample handling and/or derivatization associated with GC-MS determinations. Organophosphorus compounds, including chemical warfare agents, related compounds and lower volatility hydrolysis products may all be determined during a single LC-ESI- MS analysis. Derivatization of chemical warfare agent hydrolysis products and other compounds with hydroxyl substitution would be required prior to GC-MS analysis, giving LC-ESI-MS a definite advantage over GC-MS for the analysis of samples containing chemical warfare agents and/or their hydrolysis products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Mass SpectrometrySame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207