CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

High throughput screening of organic residues in archaeological potsherds using direct acidified methanol extraction

Correa-Ascencio, Marisol, Evershed, Richard P.·2014·Analytical Methods
DOI 10.1039/c3ay41678j
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the significant achievements of organic residues analysis of archaeological pottery, the sometimes low lipid recovery and the need to process increasingly large collections of sherds to tackle important archaeological questions require the development of a more efficient and rapid extraction method. In this paper we present a novel methodology for the extraction of absorbed organic residues directly from crushed archaeological ceramic using acidified methanol (H2SO4–MeOH 2% v/v, 70 °C, 1 h). This new protocol was tested by: (i) verifying the recovery of organic residues from previously studied archaeological vessels from different geographical regions, exhibiting a range of different lipid distributions often found in archaeological pottery, and (ii) demonstrating enhanced recovery of organic residues from potsherds that did not yield appreciable lipids when using the widely applied chloroform–methanol extraction. The application of the direct acidified methanol extraction recovers higher concentrations of lipid residues together with simultaneous production of methyl esters of fatty acids, allowing extraction and methylation to be completed in 20% of the time compared to conventional solvent extraction and derivatisation for gas chromatography (GC), gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and gas chromatography combustion isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c3ay41678j

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Evershed, 1990, Analyst, 115, 1339, 10.1039/an9901501339 · DOI
  2. Evershed, 1993, World Archaeol., 25, 74, 10.1080/00438243.1993.9980229 · DOI
  3. Evershed, 2008, World Archaeol., 40, 26, 10.1080/00438240801889373 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Evershed, 2008, Archaeometry, 50, 895, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00446.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Heron, 1993, Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory, 5, 247
  6. Oudemans, 1991, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 20, 197, 10.1016/0165-2370(91)80073-H · DOI
  7. Evershed, 2002, Acc. Chem. Res., 35, 660, 10.1021/ar000200f · DOI
  8. Heron, 1991, J. Archaeol. Sci., 18, 641, 10.1016/0305-4403(91)90027-M · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dudd, 1998, Science, 282, 1478, 10.1126/science.282.5393.1478 · DOI
  10. Mukherjee, 2007, Antiquity, 81, 743, 10.1017/S0003598X00095703 · DOI
  11. Dunne, 2012, Nature, 486, 390, 10.1038/nature11186 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Salque, 2013, Nature, 493, 522, 10.1038/nature11698 · DOI
  13. Hansel, 2004, Tetrahedron Lett., 45, 2999, 10.1016/j.tetlet.2004.01.111 · DOI
  14. Evershed, 2008, Archaeometry, 50, 101, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00368.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Patrick, 1985, Archaeometry, 27, 231, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.1985.tb00366.x · DOI
  16. Craig, 2007, Archaeometry, 49, 135, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00292.x · DOI
  17. Heron, 1994, Naturwissenschaften, 81, 266, 10.1007/BF01131579 · DOI
  18. Evershed, 1997, Antiquity, 71, 979, 10.1017/S0003598X00085860 · DOI
  19. Regert, 2001, Archaeometry, 43, 549, 10.1111/1475-4754.00036 · DOI
  20. Charters, 1995, Archaeometry, 37, 113, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.1995.tb00730.x · DOI
  21. Copley, 2001, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 268, 593, 10.1098/rspb.2000.1394 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Copley, 2005, Analyst, 130, 860, 10.1039/b500403a · DOI · Paper page
  23. Condamin, 1976, Archaeometry, 18, 195, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.1976.tb00160.x · DOI
  24. Reber, 2003, Antiquity, 78, 682, 10.1017/S0003598X00113316 · DOI
  25. Reber, 2004, Archaeometry, 46, 19, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00141.x · DOI
  26. Evershed, 1991, Antiquity, 65, 540, 10.1017/S0003598X00080145 · DOI
  27. Stern, 2003, Archaeometry, 45, 457, 10.1111/1475-4754.00121 · DOI
  28. Stern, 2008, J. Archaeol. Sci., 35, 2188, 10.1016/j.jas.2008.02.004 · DOI
  29. Connan, 2004, Archaeometry, 46, 115, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00147.x · DOI
  30. Regert, 1998, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 265, 2027, 10.1098/rspb.1998.0536 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Eglinton, 1991, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 333, 315, 10.1098/rstb.1991.0081 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Stern, 2000, Archaeometry, 42, 399, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00890.x · DOI
  33. Craig, 2004, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 71, 613, 10.1016/j.jaap.2003.09.001 · DOI
  34. Regert, 1998, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 265, 2027, 10.1098/rspb.1998.0536 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Gregg, 2010, Archaeometry, 52, 833, 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00518.x · DOI
  36. Charters, 1997, J. Archaeol. Sci., 24, 1, 10.1006/jasc.1995.0091 · DOI
  37. Evershed, 1995, Tetrahedron Lett., 36, 8875, 10.1016/0040-4039(95)01844-8 · DOI
  38. Raven, 1997, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 40–41, 267, 10.1016/S0165-2370(97)00036-3 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Chivall, 2012, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 26, 1232, 10.1002/rcm.6188 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Correa-Ascencio, M., & Evershed, R. P.
Venue
Analytical Methods
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published
2014
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
1330
ISSN
  • 1759-9660
  • 1759-9679
DOI
10.1039/c3ay41678j
Cited by
254
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High throughput screening of organic residues in archaeological potsherds using direct acidified methanol extraction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c3ay41678j
The paper
Correa-Ascencio, M., & Evershed, R. P. (2014). High throughput screening of organic residues in archaeological potsherds using direct acidified methanol extraction. Analytical Methods. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ay41678j