Yes, it is a poor {A}I's best guess as to what the paper said. The actual paper can be found here:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2011/CC/c0cc05...

If you're at a university that can get past the paywall you can read it for free otherwise they want 32 euros for it.

The experimental setup seemed susceptible to aliasing (which is to say detecting one type of carbon when another was present) and the inability to extract the material measured makes cross checking the sensor difficult.

Everyone is so quick to criticise. It's a rip-off from the University press release which can be found here: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2011/Title,72748,en...

This article has distinct smell of automatic or computer-assisted translation all over it.

Or even just plain human translation, which was my first thought. It also sounds a little promotional.

That's physorg for you, at least this article is based on something (I hope!) true.