Field Evaluation of Solid Sorbents for Ambient Air Sampling of Pesticides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seven solid sorbents including Amberlite ® XAD-2 and XAD-4, Tenax-TA ® , Anasorb-747, Chromosorb 102, 108, and 750 were evaluated for the collection of the gas phase fraction of pesticides under field conditions at an agricultural site, Bratt's Lake, SK, located in the Canadian prairies. The polyurethane foam (PUF)/sorbent cartridge consists of two PUF layers which sandwich the solid sorbent and each layer was analyzed separately to determine which portion of the PUF/solid sorbent retained the pesticides and the extent of breakthrough. The pesticides that had high detection frequency throughout the study and ambient air concentrations well above MDL were triallate, trifluralin, ethalfluralin, and chlorpyrifos. All sorbents had improved collection efficiency as compared to a standard 7.6 cm PUF and the improvement varied with each pesticide. The most effective sorbents for trapping gas phase fraction of pesticides were XAD-2, XAD-4, Tenax-TA, and Chromosorb 108. The only sorbent not recommended for use is Chromosorb 750. For selected sampling periods when ambient concentrations were above detection limits a number of other organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides also showed more efficient collection with PUF/solid sorbent cartridges as compared to PUF cartridge. Shorter sample collection periods of 4-days improved detection frequency of pesticides.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".