Novel pressure control in supercritical fluid chromatography using a resistively heated restrictor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alternative means of independently controlling column pressure in supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) by resistively heating the post-column restrictor is demonstrated. Compared to conventional block heating methods, resistive restrictor heating provides at least four times greater pressure programming rates and allows for much faster cooling times in between runs, thereby increasing sample throughput. When applying resistive restrictor heating in proximity to a flame ionization detector, the chromatographic baseline noise increases substantially and obscures peaks. However, adding about 100 mL/min of nitrogen into the flame burner essentially removes this noise and returns the detector response to normal. The analyte retention time in consecutive pressure gradient trials reproduces well with a minimal relative standard deviation of 0.36% (n = 3). The resistive restrictor heating technique presented is also found to be equally effective for either capillary or packed SFC operating modes. Results suggest that this method can potentially provide a simple, inexpensive, and convenient alternative to limited passive restrictors or more costly and complex backpressure regulators that are often used to maintain system pressure in supercritical fluid chromatography.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".