MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620011886 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02921-8

Application of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in food adulteration determination: the example of Sudan dye I in paprika powder

2017· article· en· W2620011886 on OpenAlexafffund
Yaxi Hu, Shuo Wang, Shenlin Wang, Xiaonan Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicDye analysis and toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBeijing National Laboratory for Molecular SciencesPeking UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsDetection limitNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopySpectroscopyChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AcetonitrileProton NMRChromatographyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carcinogenic Sudan I has been added illegally into spices for an apparent freshness. 1H solution and solid-state (SS) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopies were applied and compared for determination of Sudan I in paprika powders (PPs). For solution NMR, PPs spiked with Sudan I were extracted with acetonitrile, centrifuged, rotor-evaporated, and re-dissolved in DMSO-d6 for spectral collection. For SSNMR, Sudan I contaminated PPs were mixed with DMSO-d6 solution and used for spectral collection. Linear regression models constructed for quantitative analyses resulted in the average accuracies for unknown samples as 98% and 105%, respectively. Limits of detection for the solution NMR and SSNMR spectrometers were 6.7 and 128.6 mg kg−1, while the limits of quantification were 22.5 and 313.7 mg kg−1. The overall analysis time required by both methods was similar (35 and 32 min). Both NMR techniques are feasible for rapid and accurate determination of Sudan I adulteration in PPs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicDye analysis and toxicityFrench-language works237,207