Comparison of solid-phase extraction sorbents for cleanup in pesticide residue analysis of fresh fruits and vegetables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample extracts of various commodities, obtained using the US Food and Drug Administration (acetone extraction) and Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (acetonitrile extraction) methods for pesticides were subjected to cleanup with solid phase extraction (SPE) columns. Graphitized carbon black (GCB), octadecylsilyl (C-18), strong anion exchange (SAX), aminopropyl (—NH2), and primary secondary amine (PSA) SPE columns were evaluated. The relative sample cleanup provided by these SPE columns was evaluated using gas chromatography with electron capture, flame photometric, and mass spectrometric detection. The —NH2 and PSA columns were found to provide the most effective cleanup, removing the greatest number of sample matrix interferences. The GCB columns removed most of the visible plant pigment in the extracts, but did little to eliminate the fatty acid matrix interferences “seen” by the detectors. Likewise, the C-18 and SAX columns did little to eliminate matrix interferences. Using an acetone extraction followed by a PSA cleanup, both polar and nonpolar pesticides present in samples at 1.0 ng/g could be recovered.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it