Tof‐SIMS studies on chlorhexidine and its reaction products with sodium hypochlorite to ascertain decomposition products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The combination of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and Chlorhexidine (CHX), results in the formation of a precipitate. Previous studies have been conducted to find at which concentrations the precipitate appeared and its identity. One postulate is that when CHX breaks down that one of its products is the toxic para‐chloroaniline. Both X‐Ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Time‐of‐Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry have been used to qualify and quantify the precipitation. A problem that exists with both techniques is that the breakdown components are likely to show similar functionalities/fragments as those in CHX. Thus the presence of the breakdown components can only be surmised. For example, CHX shows peaks at 127, 153, 170 and 195 in the positive ToF‐SIMS spectrum corresponding to various molecular fragments from the parent CHX molecule arising from the breaking of the various C to N bonds. However, the major peak for chloroaniline is also that at 127. The positive ToF‐SIMS spectrum of the precipitate (after DI‐water wash) shows these fragments as well as a peak at 111 correlating with the NaOCl concentration. However, importantly, there is no evidence of the CHX parent ion on the precipitate which is present in the mass spectrum of CHX. This suggests that the fragments shown in the precipitate mass spectrum do arise from the breakdown components. This is further confirmed by mass spectra taken of the cooled precipitate and also from immiscible liquids present in the DI‐water wash solution, which showed a large increase in the peak intensity at mass 127. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".