MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2257197057 · doi:10.3133/sir20155177

Transport and deposition of asbestos-rich sediment in the Sumas River, Whatcom County, Washington

2015· article· en· W2257197057 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher A. Curran, Scott A. Anderson, Jack E. Barbash, Christopher S. Magirl, Stephen E. Cox, Katherine K. Norton, Andrew S. Gendaszek, Andrew R. Spanjer, James R. Foreman

Notice bibliographique

RevueScientific investigations report · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueSoil erosion and sediment transport
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesFisheries and Oceans CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyUniversity of British ColumbiaWashington State UniversityWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeWestern Washington UniversityU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mots-clésTributaryHydrology (agriculture)SedimentGeologyMass wastingSurface runoffSpring (device)Flood mythDebrisEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyOceanographyGeographyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

First posted February 8, 2016 For additional information, contact: Director, Washington Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey934 Broadway, Suite 300Tacoma, Washington 98402http://wa.water.usgs.gov Heavy sediment loads in the Sumas River of Whatcom County, Washington, increase seasonal turbidity and cause locally acute sedimentation. Most sediment in the Sumas River is derived from a deep-seated landslide of serpentinite that is located on Sumas Mountain and drained by Swift Creek, a tributary to the Sumas River. This mafic sediment contains high amounts of naturally occurring asbestiform chrysotile. A known human-health hazard, asbestiform chrysotile comprises 0.25–37 percent, by mass, of the total suspended sediment sampled from the Sumas River as part of this study, which included part of water year 2011 and all of water years 2012 and 2013. The suspended-sediment load in the Sumas River at South Pass Road, 0.6 kilometers (km) downstream of the confluence with Swift Creek, was 22,000 tonnes (t) in water year 2012 and 49,000 t in water year 2013. The suspended‑sediment load at Telegraph Road, 18.8 km downstream of the Swift Creek confluence, was 22,000 t in water year 2012 and 27,000 t in water year 2013. Although hydrologic conditions during the study were wetter than normal overall, the 2-year flood peak was only modestly exceeded in water years 2011 and 2013; runoff‑driven geomorphic disturbance to the watershed, which might have involved mass wasting from the landslide, seemed unexceptional. In water year 2012, flood peaks were modest, and the annual streamflow was normal. The fact that suspended-sediment loads in water year 2012 were equivalent at sites 0.6 and 18.8 km downstream of the sediment source indicates that the conservation of suspended‑sediment load can occur under normal hydrologic conditions. The substantial decrease in suspended-sediment load in the downstream direction in water year 2013 was attributed to either sedimentation in the intervening river reach, transfer to bedload as an alternate mode of sediment transport, or both.The sediment in the Sumas River is distinct from sediment in most other river systems because of the large percentage of asbestiform chrysotile in suspension. The suspended sediment carried by the Sumas River consists of three major components: (1) a relatively dense, largely non-flocculated material that settles rapidly out of suspension; (2) a lighter component containing relatively high proportions of flocculated material, much of it composed of asbestiform chrysotile; and (3) individual chrysotile fibers that are too small to flocculate or settle out, and remain in suspension as wash load (these fibers are on the order of microns in length and tenths of microns in diameter). Whereas the bulk density of the first (heaviest) component of suspended sediment was between 1.5 and 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3), the bulk density of the flocculated material was an order of magnitude lower (0.16 g/cm3), even after 24 hours of settling. Soon after immersion in water, the fresh chrysotile fibers derived from the Swift Creek landslide seem to flocculate readily into large bundles, or floccules, that exhibit settling velocities characteristic of coarse silts and fine sands (30 and 250 micrometers). In quiescent water within this river system, the floccules settle out quickly, but still leave between 2.4 and 19.5 million chrysotile fibers per liter in the clear overlying water. Consistent with the results from previous laboratory research, the amounts of asbestiform chrysotile in the water column in Swift Creek, as well as in the Sumas River close to and downstream of its confluence with Swift Creek, were determined to be directly correlated with pH. This observation offers a possible alternative to either turbidity or suspended‑sediment concentration as a surrogate for the concentration of fresh asbestiform chrysotile in suspension.Continued movement and associated erosion of the landslide through mass wasting and runoff will maintain large sediment loads in Swift Creek and in the Sumas River for the foreseeable future. Given the present channel morphology of the river system, aggradation (that is, sediment accumulation) in Swift Creek and the Sumas River are also likely to continue.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,194

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,240
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScientific investigations reportMême sujetSoil erosion and sediment transportTravaux en français237 207