Compound-Specific Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis of Chlorofluorocarbons in Groundwater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), controlled substances due to their role in stratospheric ozone loss, also occur as dissolved contaminants in groundwaters. Stable carbon isotopic signatures may provide valuable new information on the fate of these compounds as has been seen for other priority hydrocarbon contaminants, but to date no method for extraction and isotopic analysis of dissolved CFCs from groundwaters has been developed. Here we describe a cryogenic purge and trap system coupled to continuous flow compound-specific stable carbon isotope analysis mass spectrometry for concentrations as low as 35 μg/L. The method is validated by comparing isotopic signatures from water extracted CFCs against a new suite of isotopic CFC standards. Fractionation of CFCs in volatilization experiments from pure-phase CFC-11 and CFC-113 resulted in enrichment factors (ε) of +1.7 ± 0.1‰ and +1.1 ± 0.1‰, respectively, indicating that such volatile loss, if significant, would produce a more (13)C depleted signature in the remaining CFCs. Importantly, no significant fractionation was observed during volatile extraction of dissolved CFCs from aqueous solutions. δ(13)C values for groundwaters from a CFC-contaminated site were, on average, more enriched than δ(13)C values for pure compounds. Such enriched δ(13)C values have been seen in other hydrocarbon contaminants such as chlorinated ethenes and ethanes due to in situ degradation, but definitive interpretation of such enriched signatures in field samples requires additional experiments to characterize fractionation of CFCs during biodegradation. The establishment of a robust and sensitive method of extraction and analysis, as described here, provides the foundation for such future directions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".