Soil air sample storage and handling using polypropylene syringes and glass vials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate determination of gas concentration in soil air samples implies adequate sampling and storage procedures to preserve sample integrity. In this study, we tested polypropylene syringes and glass vials for handling and storage of N 2 O air samples. Losses of N 2 O were large and rapid when a gas standard was stored in polypropylene syringes (16% after 24 h). Moreover, gas adsorption on the inner walls (and rubber gasket) of the syringes reached a maximum of 5.8% of the initial N 2 O after 7 h of storage. These results indicated that polypropylene syringes are not reliable for storing air samples. Commercially available glass vials maintained a moderately high level of vacuum over time (89% after 136 d). However, their overall performance was decreased by contamination (approx. 3%) occurring at the end of the evacuation procedure when the hole left by the needle of the evacuation line took a few seconds to close up. The addition of a silicone septum was proposed to reduce this contamination. The modified vials maintained an average vacuum level of 98% after 136 d. The average contamination rate of N 2 O samples during the first 129 d of storage was 0.20 and 0.13% d -1 with one and two septa, respectively. Key words: Nitrous oxide, air sample
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".