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 OpenAlex
Paul A. D’Agostino, James R. Hancock, C. L. Chenier

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
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