Effects of Extraction pH on the Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry Profiles of Athabasca Oil Sands Process Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of the acidic and basic extracts of oil sands process water (OSPW) was performed using positive- and negative-ion electrospray ionization (ESI) and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI), coupled with a 12 T solariX Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer (FTICR MS). In general, the acid-neutral extracts showed higher oxygen content within the negative-ion profiles (both APPI and ESI). The hydrocarbon class was readily observed in the base-neutral extract. Furthermore, a comparison of O 2 S (radical ion) and O 2 S [H] (protonated) classes in positive-ion APPI data showed significant differences in the distribution of double-bond equivalent (DBE) versus carbon number, which are indicative of differences in structures of the two classes. The S-containing species were relatively more abundant in the base-neutral extract, and the radical O 2 S ions displayed the characteristic profile of thiophenic compounds. ESI profiles for samples extracted at both pH values (2 and 11) investigated were suitable for characterization of the most polar components within the complex OSPW mixture, while APPI was suitable for the ionization of a broader range of heteroatom classes. Because profile comparisons are important for environmental forensics, this study highlights the need for careful attention to extraction pH effects on the measured profiles of OSPW components.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".