MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396792527 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.3c05654

Colorimetric Detection of Sulfur Mustard with 4-(<i>p</i>-Nitrobenzyl)pyridine and Its Derivatives

2024· article· en· W4396792527 on OpenAlexafffund
Hao Zhou, Vivian M. Lau, Jennifer A. Love

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaMinistère de la Défense NationaleUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsChemistrySulfur mustardPyridineSulfurNucleophilic substitutionNucleophileSubstitution reactionOrganic chemistryCombinatorial chemistryChromatographyComputational chemistryToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we present a simple, highly sensitive, and selective colorimetric method for detecting sulfur mustard (SM) and its simulants. This method relies on a nucleophilic substitution reaction between derivatives of 4-( p -nitrobenzyl)pyridine (NBP) and SM and subsequent treatment with an external base, resulting in a visible response. This reaction exhibits an impressively low detection threshold by the naked eye, as low as 10 ppm at room temperature. In contrast to the conventional use of NBP for detecting other alkylating agents, such as nitrogen mustard, our approach eliminates the need for prolonged heating or intricate extraction processes. Both computational and experimental investigations underscore the significance of water within our detection medium as it stabilizes crucial episulfonium cation intermediates. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practical applicability of this sensor by incorporating it onto cellulose and silica surfaces, which may provide guidance for the design and development of solid-state SM detectors.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207