{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017670682730923693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004819277108433735, 'mean_word_length': 5.808743169398907, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interaction between sample preparation techniques and three methods of nitrite determination.

Meat samples containing nitrite and varying concentrations of ascorbate, cysteine, and sodium chloride were prepared for nitrite analysis. The methods used were the AOAC method of dilution and heating; the addition of mercuric chloride, charcoal, and Carrez reagents at 2 different pH values; and direct analysis of sample supernatants with no treatment (control). The effect of these initial conditions and preparation methods on measured nitrite was determined by using 3 different Griess reagent combinations and chemiluminescent and differential pulse polarographic techniques. Systematic variations were observed in samples treated with mercuric chloride, while the addition of Carrez reagents had little or no effect. Best results were obtained by the AOAC dilution/heating method under alkaline conditions, or by charcoal addition followed by chemiluminescent or colorimetric nitrite determination. Statistical analysis of the nitrite concentrations determined in the several samples showed that these 3 procedures were precise to about 5-6% CV, which was not significantly different from the CV value of 4% determined from replicate analyses.