In-line coupling capillary electrochromatography with amperometric detection for analysis of explosive compounds
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
Amperometric detection at a bare gold electrode has been in-line coupled with capillary electrochromatography (CEC) for analysis of nitroaromatic and nitroamine explosives in contaminated soils and ground water. The CEC column packed with 3 microm C18 particles performed best using a mobile phase containing 70-80% methanol, 30 or 20% water, 5 mM sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and 10mM 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid (MES). In contrast, the separation column packed with 1.5 km C18 particles exhibited the best separation when only 30% methanol was added to a mobile phase containing 70% water, 7 mM SDS, and 10 mM MES. The detection, based on electrochemical reduction of the explosives (-0.7 or -1 V vs. Ag/AgCl, depending upon the level of methanol in the mobile phase), was compatible with such mobile phases. The detection limits for 13 explosives ranged from 100 to 200 ppb, i.e., about twofold better than those obtained with electrokinetic chromatography (EKC)/amperometric detection. From an operational viewpoint, exhaustive column conditioning was a prerequisite and care should be taken to prevent bubble formation and current breakdown during the course of separation. The CEC column equipped with amperometric detection successfully measured explosives in ground water and extracts prepared from contaminated soils and the results obtained agreed well with those of the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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