MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127770298 · doi:10.1039/c0an00331j

Desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry for the detection of analytes extracted by thin-film molecularly imprinted polymers

2010· article· en· W2127770298 on OpenAlexaff
Geert Van Biesen, Justin M. Wiseman, Jessica Li, Christina S. Bottaro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersEdgewood Chemical Biological Center
KeywordsAnalyteChemistryMolecularly imprinted polymerMass spectrometryChromatographyDetection limitDesorptionElectrosprayDesorption electrospray ionizationAqueous solutionElectrospray ionizationExtraction (chemistry)Tap waterAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonizationChemical ionizationSelectivityAdsorptionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) is a powerful technique for the analysis of solid and liquid surfaces that has found numerous applications in the few years since its invention. For the first time, it is applied to the detection of analytes extracted by molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) in a thin-film format. MIPs formed with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) as the template were used for the extraction of this analyte from aqueous solutions spiked at concentrations of 0.0050-2.0 mg L(-1) (approximately 2 x 10(-8) to approximately 1 x 10(-5) M). The response was linear up to 0.50 mg L(-1), and then levelled off due to saturation of the active sites of the MIP. In MS/MS mode, the signal at 0.0050 mg L(-1) was still an order of magnitude higher than the signal of a blank. The MIP DESI-MS approach was also used for the analysis of tap water and river water spiked with 2,4-D and four analogues, which indicated that these analogues were also extracted to various extents. For practical applications of the MIP, a detection technique is required that can distinguish between these structurally similar compounds, and DESI-MS fulfills this purpose.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207