A protocol for wide-scope non-target analysis of contaminants in small amounts of biota using bead beating tissuelyser extraction and LC-HRMS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes a robust and powerful method for wide-scope target and non-target analysis of xenobiotics in biota samples based on bead beating tissuelyser extraction, solid phase extraction (SPE) clean-up and further detection by liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Unlike target methodologies, non-target methods usually aim at determining a wide range of still unknown substances with different physicochemical properties. Therefore, losses during the extraction process were minimised. Apart from that, the reduction of possible interferences showed to be necessary to expand the number of compounds that can be detected. This was achieved with an additional SPE clean-up step carried out with mixed-bed multi-layered cartridges. The method was validated with a set of 27 compounds covering a wide range of physicochemical properties, and further applied to the analysis of krill and fish samples.•The bead beating extraction was efficient for a wide range of organic pollutants in small quantities of biota samples.•Multi-layered solid phase extraction clean-up yield a wide xenobiotics coverage reducing matrix effects.•Method validation with 27 compounds led to a suitable method for non-target analysis of organic pollutants in biota.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it