MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sequential exhaustive extraction of a Mollisol soil, and characterizations of humic components, including humin, by solid and solution state NMR

2008· article· en· W2017773631 on OpenAlexaff
Guixue Song, E. H. Novotny, André J. Simpson, C. E. Clapp, M.H.B. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersIrish Research CouncilScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsHuminChemistryUreaHumic acidAqueous solutionExtraction (chemistry)SolventNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A comprehensive sequential extraction procedure was applied to isolate soil organic components using aqueous solvents at different pH values, base plus urea (base‐urea), and finally dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) plus concentrated H 2 SO 4 (DMSO‐acid) for the humin‐enriched clay separates. The extracts from base‐urea and DMSO‐acid would be regarded as ‘humin’ in the classical definitions. The fractions isolated from aqueous base, base‐urea and DMSO‐acid were characterized by solid and solution state NMR spectroscopy. The base‐urea solvent system isolated ca. 10% (by mass) additional humic substances. The combined base‐urea and DMSO‐acid solvents isolated ca. 93% of total organic carbon from the humin‐enriched fine clay fraction (<2 μm). Characterization of the humic fractions by solid‐state NMR spectroscopy showed that oxidized char materials were concentrated in humic acids isolated at pH 7, and in the base‐urea extract. Lignin‐derived materials were in considerable abundance in the humic acids isolated at pH 12.6. Only very small amounts of char‐derived structures were contained in the fulvic acids and fulvic acids‐like material isolated from the base‐urea solvent. After extraction with base‐urea, the 0.5 m NaOH extract from the humin‐enriched clay was predominantly composed of aliphatic hydrocarbon groups, and with lesser amounts of aromatic carbon (probably including some char material), and carbohydrates and peptides. From the combination of solid and solution‐state NMR spectroscopy, it is clear that the major components of humin materials, from the DMSO‐acid solvent, after the exhaustive extraction sequence, were composed of microbial and plant derived components, mainly long‐chain aliphatic species (including fatty acids/ester, waxes, lipids and cuticular material), carbohydrate, peptides/proteins, lignin derivatives, lipoprotein and peptidoglycan (major structural components in bacteria cell walls). Black carbon or char materials were enriched in humic acids isolated at pH 7 and humic acids‐like material isolated in the base‐urea medium, indicating that urea can liberate char‐derived material hydrogen bonded or trapped within the humin matrix.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations112
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207