Examining the Compositional Selectivity of Hydrocarbon Oxidation Products Using Liquid–Liquid Extraction and Solid-Phase Extraction Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of extraction methods on detecting hydrocarbon oxidation products (HOPs) in groundwater remains unclear. HOPs are polar, water-soluble byproducts of petroleum biodegradation. Our previous work showed that liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), a method commonly used in regulatory monitoring, has a significantly lower extraction efficiency for HOPs compared to solid-phase extraction (SPE). In this study, we evaluate the analytical limitations and compositional selectivity of LLE and SPE using groundwater samples from the Bemidji, MN, crude oil spill site. Optical properties were characterized using excitation-emission matrix spectroscopy (EEMs), and a three-component PARAFAC model was validated, showing consistent trends across both extracts and whole water samples. Ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry (UHR-MS) revealed that LLE selectively recovered aliphatic-like compounds but underrepresented more polar oxygenated HOPs. In contrast, SPE methods were more effective at isolating highly oxidized compound classes. These differences were consistent across a gradient of contamination. Overall, the LLE was less precise and less representative of polar HOPs, introducing bias in the characterization of HOPs. This study is the first to quantitatively demonstrate the compositional selectivity and analytical bias of LLE versus SPE for HOPs using combined EEM-PARAFAC and UHR-MS techniques, with implications for long-term monitoring and site assessment protocols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".