Determination of lasalocid sodium in animal feeds and premixes by reversed-phase liquid chromatography: collaborative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A liquid chromatographic (LC) method for the analysis of lasalocid sodium in premixes, complete animal feeds, and trace-level feeds was collaboratively studied. The method employs a 0.5% HCI acidified methanol extraction followed by 20 min sonication in a water bath heated to 40 degrees C. Samples are then shaken on a mechanical shaker for 1 h and stored overnight, followed by an additional 10 min shaking the following morning. Sample extracts are diluted if necessary with extractant, filtered, and injected onto an LC system. Determination of all lasalocid homologs is by reversed-phase LC with fluorescence detection at 314 nm excitation and 418 nm emission. Eight samples of drug premixes, medicated feeds, and mineral supplements, along with 2 samples for trace-level analysis were sent to 20 collaborators in the United States, Canada, and The Netherlands. Study data were returned by 17 laboratories. Two additional supplemental trace-level samples and a blank feed were provided to 15 of the collaborating laboratories, and test data were received from all 15 participants. For the drug premixes, medicated feeds, and mineral supplements, RSDr values (within-laboratory repeatability) ranged from 1.2 to 19.9%, RSDR values (among-laboratory reproducibility) ranged from 3.4 to 32.3%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.35 to 3.73. For the trace-level samples, only lasalocid A, the predominant homolog comprising > 90% of the sum of all homolog peak area, was quantified. All laboratories correctly identified the analyte. Although some instrument response was reported by a number of laboratories for the blank feed, all but one laboratory's results were well below the 1 mg/kg limit of quantification. RSDr values for the initial 2 trace-level samples were excessive, ranging from 51.6 to 64.4%. RSDR values ranged from 51.6 to 75.7%, and HorRat values ranged from 3.6 to 4.0. Data for the initial trace-level samples indicated that the test samples were improperly prepared to ensure homogeneity, and a new set of supplemental samples was provided to collaborators, with significantly improved results. RSDr values for the 2 supplemental trace-level samples ranged from 1.6 to 2.5%, RSDR values ranged from 5.6 to 9.2%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.43 to 0.62.
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".