MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038444745 · doi:10.1002/fact.1021

Field detection and identification of a bioaerosol suite by pyrolysis‐gas chromatography‐ion mobility spectrometry*

2001· article· en· W2038444745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Peter Snyder, Ashish Tripathi, Waleed M. Maswadeh, Jim Ho, Mel Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueField Analytical Chemistry & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolBioaerosolIon-mobility spectrometryChemistryPyrolysisGas chromatographyChromatographyMass spectrometryEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Improvements were made to a pyrolysis‐gas chromatography‐ion mobility spectrometry (Py‐GC‐IMS) stand‐alone biodetector to provide more pyrolyzate compound information to the IMS detector module. Air carrier gas flowing continuously through the pyrolysis tube, the rate of air flow, and pyrolysis rate were found to improve the relative quality and quantity of pyrolyzate compounds detected by the IMS detector compared to earlier work. These improvements allowed a greater degree of confidence in the correlation of biological aerosols obtained in outdoor testing scenarios to a standard GC‐IMS biological aerosol dataset. The airflow improvement allowed more biomarker compounds to be observed in the GC‐IMS data domain for aerosols of gram‐negative Erwinia herbicola (EH) and ovalbumin protein as compared to previous studies. Minimal differences were observed for gram‐positive spores of Bacillus subtilis var. globigii (BG) from that of earlier work. Prior outdoor aerosol challenges dealt with the detection of one organism, either EH or BG. Biological aerosols were disseminated in a Western Canadian prairie and the Py‐GC‐IMS was tested for its ability to detect the biological aerosols. The current series of outdoor trials consisted of three different biological aerosol challenges. Forty‐two trials were conducted and a simple area calculation of the GC‐IMS data domain biomarker peaks correlated with the correct bioaerosol challenge in 30 trials (71%). In another 7 trials, the status of an aerosol was determined to be biological in origin. Two additional trials had no discernible, unambiguous GC‐IMS biological response, because they were blank water sprays. Reproducible limits of detection were at a concentration of less than 0.5 bacterial analyte‐containing particle per liter of air. In order to realize this low concentration, an aerosol concentrator was used to concentrate 2000 l of air in 2.2 min. Previous outdoor aerosol trials have shown the Py‐GC‐IMS device to be a credible detector with respect to determining the presence of a biological aerosol. The current series of outdoor trials has provided a platform to show that the Py‐GC‐IMS can provide information more specific than a biological or non‐biological analysis to an aerosol when the time of dissemination is unknown to the operator. The Py‐GC‐IMS is shown to be able to discriminate between aerosols of a gram‐positive spore (BG), a gram‐negative bacterium (EH), and a protein (ovalbumin). © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Field Analyt Chem Technol 5: 190–204, 2001

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueField Analytical Chemistry & TechnologySame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207