MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770266927 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.7b03423

Simultaneous Speciation Analysis of Arsenic, Chromium, and Selenium in the Bioaccessible Fraction for Realistic Risk Assessment of Food Safety

2017· article· en· W2770266927 on OpenAlexafffund
Nausheen W. Sadiq, Diane Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryArsenicGenetic algorithmInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryChromiumEnvironmental chemistrySeleniumLeaching (pedology)ChromatographyMass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and fast method was developed for risk assessment of As, Cr, and Se in food, which is demonstrated here using three cooked and uncooked rice samples (basmati as well as organic white and brown rice). The bioaccessible fraction was first determined through online leaching of rice minicolumns (maintained at 37 °C) sequentially with artificial saliva, gastric juice, and intestinal juice while continuously monitoring potentially toxic elements (As, Cr, and Se) by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). Then, a new ion chromatography method with online detection by ICPMS was developed for the simultaneous speciation analysis of As, Cr, and Se in the bioaccessible fraction to determine the portion of these elements that was actually toxic. Using gradient elution, four As species [As(III), As(V), monomethylarsonic acid, and dimethylarsinic acid], two Cr species [Cr(III) and Cr(VI)], and two Se species [Se(IV) and Se(VI)] were separated within 12 min. The simultaneous speciation analysis of As, Cr, and Se revealed that the simple act of cooking can convert all of the carcinogenic Cr(VI) to the safer Cr(III).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207