ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2018
Increasing Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Gas Chromatography - Electroantennography Using a Deans Switch Effluent Chopper.
Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Olfaction in fruit flies (Tephritidae) balances detection and discrimination of host fruits.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Domestication Reduces Floral Volatile Richness in Squash (Cucurbitaceae: Cucurbita) But Conserves Key Compounds Critical for Pollinator Attraction.Journal of chemical ecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gas-chromatography-electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) is a technique used in the identification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as pheromones and plant host odors, which are physiologically relevant to insects. Although pheromones often elicit large EAD responses, other behaviorally relevant odors may elicit responses that are difficult to discern from noise. Lock-in amplification has long been used to reduce noise in a wide range of applications. Its utility when incorporated with GC-EAD was demonstrated previosuly by chopping (or pulsing) effluent-laden air that flowed over an insect antenna. This method had the disadvantage that it stimulated noise-inducing mechanoreceptors and, in some cases, disturbed the electrochemical interfaces in a preparation, limiting its performance. Here, the chopping function necessary for lock-in amplification was implemented directly on the GC effluent using a simple Deans switch. The technique was applied to excised antennae from female Heliothis virescens responding to phenethyl alcohol, a common VOC emitted by plants. Phenethyl alcohol was always visible and quantifiable on the flame ionization detector (FID) chromatogram, allowing the timing and amount of stimulus delivered to the antennal preparation to be measured. In our new chopper EAG configuration, the antennal preparation was shielded from air currents in the room, further reducing noise. A dose-response model in combination with a Markov-chain monte-carlo (MCMC) method for Bayesian inference was used to estimate and compare performance in terms of error rates involved in the detection of insect responses to GC peaks visible on an FID detector. Our experiments showed that the predicted single-trial phenethyl alcohol detection limit on female H. virescens antennae (at a 5.0% expected error rate) was 140,330 pg using traditional EAG recording methods, compared to 2.6-6.3 pg (5th to the 95th percentile) using Deans switch-enabled lock-in amplification, corresponding to a 10.4-12.7 dB increase in signal-to-noise ratio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.