Key comparison CCQM-K78.b - non-polar analytes in organic solvent: methoxychlor and trifluralin in acetonitrile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main text The CCQM-K78.b key comparison was coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) on behalf of the CCQM Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the 'Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière' (CCQM), for National Measurement Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) providing measurement services in organic analysis under the 'Comité International des Poids et Mesures' (CIPM) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). This key comparison was conducted as a 'Track A' comparison within the OAWG's 10-year strategic plan. The goal of CCQM-K78.b was to underpin capabilities for the value assignment of calibration solutions containing low polarity/non-polar organic analytes in organic solvents. The selected model system consisted of a two-component pesticide solution in acetonitrile, comprising methoxychlor and trifluralin. Participants were tasked with assigning the mass fractions, in units of μg/g, of methoxychlor and trifluralin in acetonitrile solution. The mass fraction levels and analytical challenges of the selected analytes were representative of those encountered for calibration solutions of non-polar organic analytes. Participation in CCQM-K78.b allowed for the benchmarking of capabilities for assigning the mass fraction of non-polar organic compounds (pKow < -2) in solution, at mass fractions above 5 μg/g, in an organic solvent. Additionally, the comparison assessed the capabilities for the quantitative assignment of thermally labile compounds. Participants were provided by the BIPM with ampoules containing methoxychlor and trifluralin in acetonitrile. Each participant reported the mass fraction content of each analyte in μg/g. All participants ensured the metrological traceability of their results through the use of a Primary Reference Material (PRM), which was used to prepare a primary calibrator solution for each analyte using a gravimetric procedure. The twenty participating institutes primarily used analysis procedures based on GC-MS, -IDMS, -MS/MS, -ECD, and -FID, with some participants also using LC-UV for the value assignment. The analysis of methoxychlor and trifluralin in acetonitrile solution presented several challenges, including the thermal stability of the analytes under selected analytical techniques, control of solvent volatility, and considerable variation in some results using MS-based quantification methods. The mass fraction assignments for methoxychlor and trifluralin, consistent with the key comparison reference values (KCRVs), were achieved with associated relative standard uncertainties of (0.38 - 2.9) % for methoxychlor and (0.35 - 2.5) % for trifluralin. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.037 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".