Studies on azaspiracid biotoxins. I. Ultrafast high‐resolution liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry separations using monolithic columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the performance of monolithic columns was evaluated for ultrafast liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) analyses and for high-resolution separations of several azaspiracid biotoxin analogs. Because of their high permeability, monolithic columns offer a number of advantages over conventional packed columns; viz., very low backpressures and relatively flat van Deemter curves at high flow rates. That is, very high flow rates can be used for ultrafast analyses or, by using longer than normal columns, high-resolution separations are possible. In a series of experiments, we varied the mobile phase flow rates between 1 and 8 mL/min, and studied their impact on chromatographic parameters such as retention time, resolution, number of plates and pressure. The chromatographic run times could be reduced to ca. 30 s without a significant change in the separation efficiency. A signal intensity comparison revealed interesting differences between atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI) in their flow-rate dependency. An explanation with respect to the behavior as of a mass-flow or a concentration-dependent device is given in the paper. Additionally, the column length was varied between 10 and 70 cm. As a result, the number of theoretical plates increased substantially. In the example shown in the report, an increase from 13 000 plates for a 10-cm column to 80 000 for a 70-cm column is demonstrated. In addition, the potential of the monolithic columns for high-resolution LC/MS separations is shown for a complex biotoxin mixture, which was separated on a 40-cm-long column.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".