MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14145386

Remediation of a heavy metal and PAH-contaminated sediment by a rhamnolipid foam

2011· dissertation· en· W14145386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A R Nazari Alavi

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationContaminationSedimentRhamnolipidEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemHuman decontaminationWaste managementWater columnEnvironmental engineeringChemistryEcologyGeologyEngineeringBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial contaminants have long term and sometimes irreversible adverse effects on humans, animals and the ecosystem. As a result attention has been focused on the effects of these contaminants. One of the concerning environmental issues these days is contaminated sediments. The presence of aquatic organisms in sediments makes them important in the well-being and health of these organisms. If sediments become contaminated, they can pose a threat to sediment dwelling habitants and through these microorganism that can be spread even to humans. Nowadays a major concern that government regulators and related industry can face is the protection and investigation of the quality of aquatic sediments. A protection that can be done through different pathways includes remediation. \nAn investigation was made into evaluating the capability of a rhamnolipid biosurfactant (JBR425) in the form of a foam for treatment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminated fresh water sediments that also have elevated levels of Pb, Zn and Ni. Studies commenced by evaluating foam characteristics followed by performing column tests. To do this, dewatered non-dried sediments were put in a column and the biosurfactant was injected in the form of a foam or a liquid solution. The pressure gradient was monitored during flushing tests to avoid possible problems due to high pressure. Foam quality of the rhamnolipid varied between 85% and 99% with stabilities from 15 to 43 min. PAH and metal removal were then evaluated for sediment samples from sector 103 of the Port of Montreal in Montreal, Quebec with different initial concentrations of target contaminants. Among PAHs, pyrene; benz(a)anthracene and chrysene had concentrations above thresholds according to Quebec Sediment Quality Criteria. Highest removal for PAHs was obtained by a 99% quality foam produced by 0.5% rhamnolipid solution after 20 pore volumes. Removal efficiency (due to mobilization) for the biosurfactant foam was 44.6% of pyrene, 30% of benz(a)anthracene and 37.8% of chrysene while total removal efficiency (mobilization + volatilization) for the biosurfactant foam was 56.4% of pyrene, 41.2% of benz(a)anthracene and 45.9% of chrysene. With biosurfactant liquid solution at the same pH as above mentioned foam (pH 6.8), maximum removal (mobilization) was 31.4% of pyrene, 20.5% of benz(a)anthracene and 27% of chrysene. Here no volatilization of PAHs was observed. Deionized water (DI) did not remove any PAH. For metals, highest removal was achieved using 0.5% rhamnolipid foam (99% quality, pH 10.0). These were 53.3% of Ni, 56.8% of Pb and 55.2% of Zn. Removal efficiencies were reduced between 11% - 13% for metals when a 0.5% rhamnolipid solution was used. DI water removed only 16% for both Pb and Ni individually and 17% of Zn at pH 10.0. From these analyses, lower pH (6.8) rhamnolipid showed higher removal efficiencies for PAHs while it was not as successful for metals. As for metals, pH 10 was proven to be the best. It is concluded that, rhamnolipid foam could be a non-toxic and effective method of remediating PAH and heavy metal contaminated soil/sediments. Further efforts will be required to optimize the performance of the foam.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the New York Academy of MedicineSame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207