MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056915197 · doi:10.1093/chromsci/48.4.289

Rapid Method for Determination of Residual tert-Butanol in Liposomes Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography

2010· article· en· W2056915197 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenna C. Sullivan, Suzanne M. Budge, Amy Timmins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chromatographic Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChromatographyChemistrySolid-phase microextractionAnalyteGas chromatographyChloroformSample preparationButanolDetection limitHexaneResidualExtraction (chemistry)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Gas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryEthanol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple, rapid, and reliable method to detect residual levels of tert-butanol in liposomes using sec-butanol as an internal standard has been developed. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) followed by gas chromatographic analysis was used to quantify the amount of residual tert-butanol in freeze-dried liposome material. Only 1 min was necessary for reproducible amounts of analyte to absorb onto the SPME fiber, and because this method requires very little sample preparation, a single analysis can be completed in less than 15 min. This method had a linear range of 10-600 microg/mL. Careful control of times of temperature equilibration and exposure to headspace was necessary to ensure reproducible results. This method can easily be applied to other applications in the food and pharmaceutical industries where detection of residual solvents, such as hexane and chloroform, is necessary.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chromatographic ScienceSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207