Determination of inorganic As, DMA and MMA in marine and terrestrial tissue samples: a consensus extraction approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental context Arsenic can be found in all environmental compartments in a large number of chemical forms of varying toxicity. We performed an inter-laboratory comparison study focusing on quantitation of some of the most toxic arsenic forms in seven different biological materials and found very good agreement among the submitted results. Certification of the studied materials will provide suitable quality control samples for environmentally relevant concentrations of arsenic in food products and biota. Rationale Arsenic (As) speciation analysis in biological matrices has been performed for several decades; however, there are very few matrix certified reference materials available for the validation of analytical methods. The literature data on the mass fractions of As species in the existing certified reference materials are inconsistent and suggest method extraction dependency. Methodology In the present study, an international round-robin study was organised to identify the possible sources of discrepancies in quantitation of several As species in different matrices of biological reference materials: one plant tissue, three marine and three terrestrial biological tissues. Each participating laboratory was provided with a set of identical calibration standard solutions, and analysed the samples by following a common group extraction method as well as using an in-house protocol. Results The results showed that significant biases can be introduced by insufficient verification of the analyte’s mass fractions in the calibration standard solutions. The choice of extraction method seems to have very little impact on the quantitation of As species in the studied plant and terrestrial biological tissues. However, following a prescribed extraction method led to significant reduction of uncertainties in more complex samples such as marine animal tissues. Discussion Some differences in the mass fractions of As species extracted from marine animal tissues in water (with and without H2O2) were observed and should be further investigated. Despite the variety of extraction methods used, very good agreement between reported mass fractions was achieved and the combined consensus values will be published as certified reference values of As species in the studied materials.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".