MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097652629 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n1p3

Evaluation of Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS) for Detection of Acetone in the Context of Food Safety and Quality Application

2012· article· en· W2097652629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Punyatoya Mohapatra, Suranjan Panigrahi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServiceNorth Dakota State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyAcetoneDetection limitChemistryContext (archaeology)Food spoilageAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopyNuclear chemistryChromatographyPhysicsOrganic chemistryRaman scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="Body">Development of sensors for detection of contaminated food products is important to ensure safety of the community. This paper focuses on detection of a compound, acetone associated with pathogen contamination and spoilage of beef in packaged condition. Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS) technique was used to develop an integrated sensing system. This sensing system utilized laboratory prepared silver sol as the SERS substrate to detect acetone at low ppm and high ppb concentration. A set of eight experiments with two different experimental conditions were conducted. The first four set provided an estimated lower detection limit (LDL) ranging between 69.63 ppm and 630.17 ppm corresponding to the 1711 cm<sup>-1</sup> and 532 cm<sup>-1</sup> Raman shift (cm<sup>-1</sup>) regions, respectively. The second four sets of experiments provided a lower estimated LDL ranging between 9.78 ppm and 43.45 ppm corresponding to 1222 cm<sup>-1</sup> and 532 cm<sup>-1</sup>, respectively. This study demonstrated the ability of this sensing system to detect the indicator compound.</p>

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207