Determination of Compound-Specific Carbon Isotope Ratios of Chlorinated Methanes, Ethanes, and Ethenes in Aqueous Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compound-specific carbon isotope ratio analysis is a promising tool to assess the origin and fate of organic contaminants in groundwater. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a reliable, fast method to determine carbon isotope ratios of chlorinated methanes, ethanes, and ethenes in aqueous samples. Direct solid-phase microextraction (dSPME) and headspace solid-phase microextraction (hSPME) were selected as extraction method and compared to headspace equilibration. For dSPME and hSPME, deviations between carbon isotope ratios in the aqueous phase and on the SPME fiber were ≤ 0.40‰. For headspace equilibration, molecules in the gas phase were enriched in 13 C compared to molecules in the aqueous phase by up to 1.46‰, in particular for chlorinated methanes. The absence of significant carbon isotope fractionation during dSPME and hSPME could be explained by the fact that both the aqueous phase and the SPME fiber coating discriminate against molecules with 13 C to a similar degree, and thus no net carbon isotope fractionation occurs. If aqueous phase/gas-phase carbon isotope fractionation during headspace equilibration is taken into account, all methods, dSPME, hSPME, and headspace equilibration, provide accurate δ 13 C values with a similar precision. Direct SPME was the most sensitive method with detection limits as low as 130 ppb.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".