MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055133157 · doi:10.1039/b101823j

Field sample preconcentration of copper in sea water using chelating minicolumns subsequently incorporated on a flow-injection–flame atomic absorption spectrometry system

2001· article· en· W2055133157 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M.C. Yebra, N. Carro, M. F. Enríquez, A. Moreno‐Cid, Ángel Galindo García

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsChemistryAmberliteSeawaterCopperDetection limitAtomic absorption spectroscopyElutionChelating resinCertified reference materialsChromatographyPeristaltic pumpAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Hydrochloric acidExtraction (chemistry)Methyl isobutyl ketoneInorganic chemistryAdsorptionMetalKetoneMetal ions in aqueous solution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field flow preconcentration system for copper determination in seawater is described. Seawater samples are collected and preconcentrated in situ by passing them using a peristaltic pump through a minicolumn packed with Amberlite XAD-4 impregnated with the complexing agent 1-(2-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol. Thus, copper is preconcentrated without the interference of the saline matrix. Once in the laboratory, the minicolumns loaded with copper are incorporated on a flow injection system and eluted with a small volume of a 20% (v/v) ethanolic solution of 0.5 mol L-1 hydrochloric acid into the nebuliser-burner system of a flame atomic absorption spectrometer. The analytical figures of merit for the determination of copper are as follows: detection limit (3s), 0.06 microgram L-1; precision (RSD), 1.2% for 2 micrograms L-1; enrichment factor, 30 (using 25 mL of sample and 83 microL of eluent). Analysis of certified reference materials (SLEW-3 and NASS-5) showed good agreement with the certified value. This procedure was applied to the determination of copper in seawater samples from Galicia (Spain).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207