↓ Skip to main content

The First Attempt at Non-Linear in Silico Prediction of Sampling Rates for Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Samplers (POCIS)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Technology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The First Attempt at Non-Linear in Silico Prediction of Sampling Rates for Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Samplers (POCIS)
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, July 2016
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.6b01407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas H. Miller, Jose A. Baz-Lomba, Christopher Harman, Malcolm J. Reid, Stewart F. Owen, Nicolas R. Bury, Kevin V. Thomas, Leon P. Barron

Abstract

Modeling and prediction of polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS) sampling rates (Rs) for 73 compounds using artificial neural networks (ANNs) is presented for the first time. Two models were constructed: the first was developed ab initio using a genetic algorithm (GSD-model) to shortlist 24 descriptors covering constitutional, topological, geometrical and physicochemical properties and the second model was adapted for Rs prediction from a previous chromatographic retention model (RTD-model). Mechanistic evaluation of descriptors showed that models did not require comprehensive a priori information to predict Rs. Average predicted errors for the verification and blind test sets were 0.03 ± 0.02 L d(-1) (RTD-model) and 0.03 ± 0.03 L d(-1) (GSD-model) relative to experimentally determined Rs. Prediction variability in replicated models was the same or less than for measured Rs. Networks were externally validated using a measured Rs data set of six benzodiazepines. The RTD-model performed best in comparison to the GSD-model for these compounds (average absolute errors of 0.0145 ± 0.008 L d(-1) and 0.0437 ± 0.02 L d(-1), respectively). Improvements to generalizability of modeling approaches will be reliant on the need for standardized guidelines for Rs measurement. The use of in silico tools for Rs determination represents a more economical approach than laboratory calibrations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Guatemala 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 27%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 29%
Chemistry 11 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#18,048
of 20,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,690
of 377,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#227
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.