MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143758536 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2013-0350

A new and sensitive method for the determination of trace arsenic using differential pulse polarography

2013· article· en· W2143758536 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Güler Somer, Şükrü Kalaycı

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarographyChemistryArsenicSeleniumTrace AmountsCadmiumDetection limitZincAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromiumIonInorganic chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new and simple differential pulse polarographic method has been developed for the trace determination of arsenic. When selenite was added into solutions of some ions such as copper, lead, cadmium, zinc, and chromium, their differential pulse polarographic peak decreased. A new reduction peak appeared at a more positive potential than the ion present and it was always higher than the corresponding reduction peak of the ion. Thus, we made use of this interference for the trace determination of As(III). By the addition of selenite onto As(III), a new As−Se intermetallic compound peak was formed at about −0.35 V (pH at about 1.0–2.0). The trace arsenic concentration could be determined simply from this peak by the addition of standard arsenic into a polarographic cell. In the presence of large amounts of selenite, 2 × 10 −7 mol/L As(III) could be determined from this peak precisely. With the newly established method, the limit of detection was 1 × 10 −8 mol/L (S/N = 3). Among the most common cations and anions, only Cd−Se and Pb−Se intermetallic compound peaks had an overlap with the As−Se peak. This interference could be eliminated simply by the addition of EDTA. This method was applied successfully for the determination of arsenic in a digested beer sample.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207