MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058054969 · doi:10.1021/ac052178f

Simultaneous Extraction and Fractionation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Oxygenated Derivatives in Soil Using Selective Pressurized Liquid Extraction

2006· article· en· W2058054969 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Staffan Lundstedt, Peter Haglund, Lars Öberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaEuropean CommissionStiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning
KeywordsChemistryExtraction (chemistry)DichloromethaneChromatographySilica gelFraction (chemistry)FractionationCyclohexaneHydrocarbonSample preparationEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistrySolvent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a selective pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) method which can extract polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their oxygenated derivatives (oxy-PAHs) from contaminated soil and simultaneously separate them into two fractions was developed. The method uses extraction cells packed with a chromatographic adsorbent and extraction solvents of increasing polarity. Several experiments were conducted on both spiked and authentic contaminated soil samples. Different types of adsorbents, combinations of extraction solvents, and extraction temperatures were tested in order to find a method that could fulfill the purpose of the study. The final method was based on extraction cells packed with 2% deactivated silica gel. The PAHs were extracted with cyclohexane/dichloromethane (9:1) at 120 degrees C, after which the oxy-PAHs where extracted with cyclohexane/dichloromethane (1:3) at 150 degrees C. The PAHs and oxy-PAHs were efficiently separated into two fractions, and only trace amounts of some compounds were found in the inappropriate fraction. The recoveries of the PAHs were mostly above 70% and of the oxy-PAHs, above 90%. The linearity of the method was good, and the calibration curves for most compounds had a regression coefficient better than 0.99 and an intercept close to the origin of coordinates. When the selective PLE method was applied to seven authentic soil samples, the results were found to be in good agreement with those of a reference method based on Soxhlet extraction and silica gel cleanup and also in good agreement with the certified reference values available for one of the soils. The selective PLE method is faster and consumes less solvent than a traditional method based on separate extraction and fractionation steps. The selective PLE method is, therefore, suitable for the concurrent analysis of PAHs and oxy-PAHs during large-scale soil contamination studies. This will provide more information about the soil contamination and the levels of toxicity than an ordinary PAH analysis.

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)0.000
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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207