MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922031699 · doi:10.1021/es505743d.s001

Detection, Identification, and Quantification of Hydroxylated\nBis(2-ethylhexyl)-Tetrabromophthalate Isomers in House Dust

2016· article· en· W6922031699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries and Information Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetection limitResolution (logic)Mass spectrumMass spectrometryHigh resolutionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultra-High Resolution LC/mass spectrometry\n(LC-UHRMS; Thermo Fisher Q-Exactive) was used to identify two novel\nisomers of hydroxylated bis­(2-ethylhexyl)-tetrabromophthalate (OH-TBPH)\nwhich were unexpectedly observed in a commercial standard of TBPH.\nBy combining ultra-high resolution (UHR) mass spectra (MS<sup>1</sup>), mass errors to\ntheoretical [TBPH-Br+O]<sup>−</sup> were 2.1 and 1.0 ppm for\nthe two isomers, UHR-MS<sup>2</sup> spectra and NMR analysis; the\nstructures of the two compounds were identified as hydroxylated TBPH\nwith a hydroxyl group on the aromatic ring. Relatively great proportions\nof the two isomers of OH-TBPH were detected in two technical products,\nFiremaster 550 (FM-550; 0.1% and 6.2%, respectively) and Firemaster\nBZ 54 (BZ-54; 0.1% and 7.9%), compared to a commercial standard (0.4%\nand 0.9%). To simultaneously analyze OH-TBPH isomers and TBPH in samples\nof dust, a method based on LC-UHRMS was developed to quantify the\ntwo compounds, using negative and positive ion modes, respectively.\nThe instrumental limit of detection for TBPH was 0.01 μg/L,\nwhich was 200–300 times better than traditional methods (2.5\nμg/L) based on gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.\nThe analytical method combined with a Florisil cleanup was successfully\napplied to analyze TBPH and OH-TBPH in 23 indoor dust samples from\nSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Two OH-TBPH isomers, OH-TBPH1 and\nOH-TBPH2, were detected in 52% and 91% of dust samples, respectively.\nConcentrations of OH-TBPH2 (0.35 ± 1.0 ng/g) were 10-fold greater\nthan those of OH-TBPH1 (0.04 ± 0.88 ng/g) in dust, which was\nsimilar to profiles in FM-550 and BZ-54. TBPH was also detected in\n100% of dust samples with a mean concentration of 733 ± 0.87\nng/g. A significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) log–linear\nrelationship was observed between TBPH and OH-TBPH isomers, further\nsupporting the hypothesis of a common source of emission. Relatively\nsmall proportions of OH-TBPH isomers were detected in dust (0.01%\n± 0.67 OH-TBPH1 and 0.1% ± 0.60 OH-TBPH2), which were significantly\nless than those in technical products (<i>p</i> < 0.001).\nThis result indicated different environmental behaviors of OH-TBPH\nand TBPH. Detection of isomers of OH-TBPH is important, since compounds\nwith phenolic groups have often shown relatively greater toxicities\nthan nonhydroxylated analogues. Further study is warranted to clarify\nthe environmental behaviors and potential toxicities of OH-TBPH isomers.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.001

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicLibraries and Information ServicesFrench-language works237,207