MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074752561 · doi:10.1081/pfc-120030239

Analysis of Herbicide Krovar I™ by Liquid Chromatography with Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry

2004· article· en· W2074752561 on OpenAlexaff
Vesna Furtula, Jen‐ni Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmospheric-pressure chemical ionizationChromatographyChemistryDetection limitExtraction (chemistry)Mass spectrometryDichloromethaneLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryChemical ionizationSolventAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonizationIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple, very efficient method is presented for routine analysis of herbicide Krovar I (active components bromacil and diuron) in water and soil samples. Water samples were extracted by liquid-liquid extraction with dichloromethane (DCM) as extraction solvent. For soil samples two different extraction techniques were compared: microwave-assisted solvent extraction and a shaking technique using a platform shaker. Extracts were analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography using a water:methanol gradient. Liquid chromatography was coupled with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry (LC-APCI-MS) for quantification of bromacil and diuron. Optimization of the APCI-MS was done by using standards in the flow injection analysis mode (FIA). Method detection limit for liquid samples for bromacil is 0.04 microg L(-1) and for diuron 0.03 microg L(-1). Method detection limit for soil samples is 0.01 microg g(-1) dry weight for both compounds. Results of analysis of field samples of water and soil are also presented.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part BSame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207