MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403908723 · doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101791

A simple and low-cost method for determination of methanol in alcoholic solutions

2024· article· en· W4403908723 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Khodadadi, Hasan Badibostan, Azadeh Khosravi Neisiani, Ali Mohammad Sabzghabaee, Rokhsareh Meamar, John P. Giesy, Nastaran Eizadi‐Mood

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)MethanolChromatographyChemistryComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methanol poisoning can occur through consumption of methanol-containing alcohols, especially in areas where production, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol is lawfully prohibited. Due to its toxic potency, determination of methanol in alcoholic solutions is important. The aim of the present study was to develop a rapid, simple and inexpensive method for quantification of methanol in alcoholic solutions that uses minimal equipment available in most laboratories. The method developed is based microdistillation and chromotropic acid, which can be conducted without sophisticated instruments or personal. The system consists of a micro-tube suspended in a falcon tube to function as a collector. Methanol is separated from wine by microdistillation at 90°C in water bath and converted to formaldehyde in the collector. The collector contains an acidic permanganate solution that converts methanol to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde was then quantified by use of chromotropic acid in concentrated sulfuric acid. Experimental variables were optimized by using central composite design (CCD). Method detection and quantification limits were 183 mg L −1 and 584 mg L −1 , respectively. The percent relative standard deviation (RSD%) were between 6.4 and 7.9. Accuracies were between 89.6 % and 92.4 %. Concentrations of methanol in five alcoholic solutions were between 2.9×10 4 and 3.0×10 4 , mg/L, v/v (ppm). Due to its simplicity and cost effectiveness, this method can be used for routine, real-time determination of methanol in alcoholic solutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology ReportsSame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207