A Comparison of Solvent Extract Cleanup Procedures in the Analysis of Organic Explosives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of an organic solvent to extract explosive residues from hand swabs and postblast debris inevitably leads to the coextraction of unwanted materials, usually in far greater quantities than any explosive residue. In this study, the extraction efficiency of a number of solvent cleanup procedures including solid-phase extraction (SPE), adsorbent resins such as Chromosorb-104, and traditional materials such as silica and Florisil was calculated using a quantitative liquid chromatography-ultraviolet (LC-UV) detection procedure. The Oasis(®) HLB cartridge outperformed other cleanup procedures, with analyte recoveries approaching 95%, while the Amberlite XAD-7 procedure returned the lowest overall recoveries. The matrix rejection ability of each method was then determined using a simulated highly contaminated matrix, with the adsorbent resins showing a higher degree of matrix rejection, which is seen as a reduction in background noise in the UV chromatogram using 210 nm detection.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".