MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997812404 · doi:10.1002/rcm.2867

Desorption electrospray ionisation mass spectrometric analysis of chemical warfare agents from solid‐phase microextraction fibers

2007· article· en· W1997812404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. D’Agostino, C. L. Chenier, James R. Hancock, Carmela R. Jackson Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySolid-phase microextractionChromatographyChemical Warfare AgentsMass spectrometrySample preparationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SarinElectrosprayDesorption electrospray ionizationGas chromatography–mass spectrometryChemical ionizationIonizationOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Desorption electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry (DESI‐MS) was recently reported for the direct analysis of sample media without the need for additional sample handling. During the present study, direct analysis of solid‐phase microextraction (SPME) fibers by DESI‐MS/MS was evaluated with indoor office media that might be collected during a forensic investigation, including wall surfaces, office fabrics, paper products and Dacron swabs used for liquid sampling. Media spiked at the µg/g level with purified chemical warfare agents and a complex munitions grade sample of tabun, to simulate the quality of chemical warfare agent that might be used for terrorist purposes, were successfully analysed by DESI‐MS/MS. Sulfur mustard, a compound that has not been successfully analysed by electrospray mass spectrometry in the past, was also sampled using a SPME fiber and analysed for the first time by DESI‐MS/MS. Finally, the overall analytical approach involving SPME headspace sampling and DESI‐MS analysis was evaluated during a scenario‐based training live agent exercise. A sarin sample collected by the military was analysed and confirmed by DESI‐MS in a mobile laboratory under realistic field conditions. Copyright © 2007 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations74
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Communications in Mass SpectrometrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207