Analysis of Methyl Mercury Binding to Freshwater Humic and Fulvic Acids by Gel Permeation Chromatography/Hydride Generation ICP-MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined variation in MeHg (methyl mercury(II)) binding to humic and fulvic acids using GPC/HG-ICP-MS (gel permeation chromatography/hydride generation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry). Binding capacities of extracted fulvic acids for MeHg ranged between 6.65 × 10 - 11 and 2.37 × 10 - 10 mol/mg of DOC (dissolved organic carbon) as compared to between 2.96 × 10 - 10 and 9.59 × 10 - 10 mol/mg of DOC for extracted humic acids (i.e., 2−14 times higher). MeHg binding to fulvic acids increased at higher molecular sizes, but binding to humic acids was not related to molecular size. In the past, some mercury cycling models have used total sulfur as a proxy for thiol groups (the principal sites for MeHg binding). We show that total sulfur is not a good estimate of MeHg−DOC binding and that its use would result in underestimates of mercury biomagnification in food chains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".