Sampling and analytical methodology development for the determination of primary and secondary low molecular weight amines in ambient air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this project, a sampling device and an analytical method have been developed to simultaneously analyse the most frequently found low molecular weight amines, including aliphatic, aromatic and alcohol amines. These amines are diethanolamine, ethanolamine, methylamine, isopropylamine, morpholine, dimethylamine, and aniline. A sampling device was developed using a 37 mm cassette with glass fibre filters impregnated with sulfuric acid. Immediately after sampling, the filter was transferred to vials containing a solution of dansyl chloride. Dansyl chloride was used for derivatisation because it forms aromatic sulfonamides that are fluorescent and easy to protonate for MS detection. The effect of using an internal standard made with the dansylated derivative of 1-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperazine (MOPIP) on the uncertainty and efficiency of the method was also evaluated. This internal standard was spiked directly onto filters. The coupling of HPLC/ESI-MS was used for the simultaneous analysis of all the derivatives. This method showed detection limits of about 0.03 microg mL(-1) to 0.3 microg mL(-1) of amine with an average expanded uncertainty of 3% to 6% depending on the amine. The methodology recoveries are close to 100% for all the amines, and the overall estimated expanded uncertainties vary between 10% and 13% depending on the amine. This new strategy will be useful in evaluating workplace air since a unique sampling system will be used, independent of the amine to be quantified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".