Electrothermal Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Determination of Gold by Vapor Formation and <i>in situ</i> Trapping in Graphite Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gold was determined in ore samples following generation, separation, collection on a graphite cuvette inner wall, and atomization of its volatile species formed by combining an acidified sample solution with an aqueous sodium tetrahydroborate solution at room temperature. A detection limit of 2.6 microg L(-1) (3sigma) was obtained with a 5.0 mL sample volume. Precision of replicate measurements was typically 10% RSD. The overall efficiency of the volatile species generation, transport, and trapping process was 0.4%. Atomization of gold from Pd, Ir, Cu, Ag, and W coated graphite cuvettes, following by trapping of the gaseous volatile gold species on these surfaces, has been investigated. Pd coating was found to decrease the sensitivity. Five microg of Ir, 20 microg of Cu, 20 microg of Ag, and 5 microg of W were chosen as optimum masses. W treatment was the best one for sensitivity enhancement, having an improvement factor of 2.4. Silanization of glass surfaces significantly decreased memory effects; improved peak shapes were thus obtained for flow injection vapor generation atomic absorption spectrometry (FI-VGAAS). The method described in this study was used for the determination of gold in an ore reference material, Gold Ore (MA-1b), Canadian Reference Materials Program.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".