Aquatic plant‐derived changes in oil sands naphthenic acid signatures determined by low‐, high‐ and ultrahigh‐resolution mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry is a common tool for studying the fate of complex organic compound mixtures in oil sands processed water (OSPW), but a comparison of low-, high- ( approximately 10 000), and ultrahigh-resolution ( approximately 400 000) instrumentation for this purpose has not previously been made. High-resolution quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (QTOF MS) and ultrahigh-resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS), with negative-ion electrospray ionization, provided evidence for the selective dissipation of components in OSPW. Dissipation of oil sands naphthenic acids (NAs with general formula C(n)H(2n+z)O(2) where n is the number of carbon atoms, and Z is zero or a negative even number describing the number of rings) was masked (by components such as fatty acids, O(3), O(5), O(6), O(7), SO(2), SO(3), SO(4), SO(5), SO(6), and NO(4) species) at low resolution (1000) when using a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Changes observed in the relative composition of components in OSPW appear to be due primarily to the presence of plants, specifically cattails (Typha latifolia) and their associated microorganisms. The observed dissipation included a range of heteratomic species containing O(2), O(3), O(4), and O(5), present in Athabasca oil sands acid extracts. For the heteratomic O(2) species, namely naphthenic acids, an interesting structural relationship suggests that low and high carbon number NAs are dissipated by the plants preferentially, with a minimum around C(14)/C(15). Other heteratomic species containing O(6), O(7), SO(2), SO(3), SO(4), SO(5), SO(6), and NO(4) appear to be relatively recalcitrant to the cattails and were not dissipated to the same extent in planted systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".