MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922309519 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2000.016

Analysis of Aromatic Amines in Industrial Wastewater by Capillary Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

2000· article· en· W2922309519 on OpenAlexaff
Francis I. Onuska, Ken A. Terry, Roma Maguire

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyWastewaterGas chromatographyEffluentSolid phase extractionExtraction (chemistry)AnilineMass spectrometryIndustrial wastewater treatmentOrganic chemistryWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The analysis of aromatic amines, particularly benzidines, at trace levels in environmental media has been difficult because of the lack of suitable deactivated capillary column stationary phases for gas chromatography. This report describes the use of an improved type of column as well as a method for the analysis of anilines and benzidines in water, wastewater and sewage samples. Extraction procedures are applicable to a wide range of compounds that are effectively partitioned from an aqueous matrix into methylene chloride, or onto a solid-phase extraction cartridge. The extracted analytes are also amenable to separation on a capillary gas chromatographic column and transferable to the mass spectrometer. These contaminants are converted to their N-trifluoroacetyl derivatives. Aniline and some substituted anilines, and 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine and benzidine were determined in 24-h composite industrial water, wastewater, primary sludge and final effluent samples at concentrations from 0.03 up to 2760 µg/L.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207