Screening of oil sands naphthenic acids by UV-Vis absorption and fluorescence emission spectrophotometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil sands extracted naphthenic acids fractions are known to contain impurities with various levels of unsaturation and aromaticity. These constituents contain functional groups that absorb ultraviolet-visible wavelength (UV-Vis) radiation and give intense fluorescence emission in contrast to the fully saturated alicyclic naphthenic acids. UV-Vis absorption and fluorescence emission spectrophotometry are presented here as inexpensive and quick screening methods that the detection of chromophoric surrogate compounds that serve as an internal standard for the indirect analysis of oil sands naphthenic acids. The method detection limit for the screening techniques was approximately 1 mg/L with an observed linear range of 1-100 mg/L. The precision of measurements was generally within 10% r.s.d. There was generally good agreement (within 20% r.s.d) for isotherm parameters from non-linear fitting of Langmuir, BET and Freundlich models for sorption of Athabasca oil sands naphthenic acid mixtures to activated carbon samples determined by UV-Vis absorption, fluorescence emission spectroscopy, and conventional direct injection electrospray ionization mass spectrometry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".