Analysis of Natural Toxins by Liquid Chromatography-Chemiluminescence Nitrogen Detection and Application to the Preparation of Certified Reference Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of instrumental analytical methods such as LC-MS for routine monitoring of toxins requires the availability of accurate calibration standards. This is a challenge because many toxins are rare, expensive, dangerous to handle, and/or unstable, and simple gravimetric procedures are not reliable for establishing accurate concentrations in solution. NMR has served as one method of qualitative and quantitative characterization of toxin calibration solution Certified Reference Materials (CRMs). LC with chemiluminescence N detection (LC-CLND) was selected as a complementary method for comprehensive characterization of CRMs because it provides a molar response to N. Here we report on our investigation of LC-CLND as a method suitable for quantitative analysis of nitrogenous toxins. It was demonstrated that a wide range of toxins could be analyzed quantitatively by LC-CLND. Furthermore, equimolar responses among diverse structures were established and it was shown that a single high-purity standard such as caffeine could be used for instrument calibration. The limit of detection was approximately 0.6 ng N. Measurement of several of Canada's National Research Council toxin CRMs with caffeine as the calibrant showed precision averaging 2% RSD and accuracy ranging from 97 to 102%. Application of LC-CLND to the production of calibration solution CRMs and the establishment of traceability of measurement results are presented.
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".