MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796670645 · doi:10.1002/rcm.8136

A comparison of extraction systems for plant water stable isotope analysis

2018· article· en· W2796670645 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsChemistryExtraction (chemistry)DistillationVacuum distillationMass spectrometryIsotope analysisWater extractionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Isotope-ratio mass spectrometryChromatographyEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale The stable isotope ratios of water (δ 2 H and δ 18 O values) have been widely used to trace water in plants in a variety of physiological, ecohydrological, biogeochemical and hydrological studies. In such work, the analyte must first be extracted from samples, prior to isotopic analysis. While cryogenic vacuum distillation is currently the most widely used method reported in the literature, a variety of extraction‐collection‐analysis methods exist. A formal inter‐method comparison on plant tissues has yet to be carried out. Methods We performed an inter‐method comparison of six plant water extraction techniques: direct vapour equilibration, microwave extraction, two unique versions of cryogenic vacuum distillation, centrifugation, and high‐pressure mechanical squeezing. These methods were applied to four isotopically unique plant portions (head, stem, leaf, and root crown) of spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). Extracted plant water was analyzed via spectrometric (OA‐ICOS) and mass‐based (IRMS) analysis systems when possible. Spring wheat was grown under controlled conditions with irrigation inputs of a known isotopic composition. Results The tested methods of extraction yielded markedly different isotopic signatures. Centrifugation, microwave extraction, direct vapour equilibration, and high‐pressure mechanical squeezing produced water more enriched in 2 H and 18 O content. Both cryogenic vacuum distillation systems and the high‐pressure mechanical squeezing method produced water more depleted in 2 H and 18 O content, depending upon the plant portion extracted. The various methods also produced differing concentrations of co‐extracted organic compounds, depending on the mode of extraction. Overall, the direct vapor equilibration method outperformed all other methods. Conclusions Despite its popularity, cryogenic vacuum distillation was outperformed by the direct vapor equilibration method in terms of limited co‐extraction of volatile organic compounds, rapid sample throughput, and near instantaneous returned stable isotope results. More research is now needed with other plant species, especially woody plants, to see how far the findings from this study could be extended.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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