FUELS IN SOIL TEST KIT: FIELD USE OF DIESEL DOG SOIL TEST KITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Research Institute (WRI) has developed a new commercial product ready for technology transfer, the Diesel Dog{reg_sign} Portable Soil Test Kit, for performing analysis of fuel-contaminated soils in the field. The technology consists of a method developed by WRI (U.S. Patents 5,561,065 and 5,976,883) and hardware developed by WRI that allows the method to be performed in the field (patent pending). The method is very simple and does not require the use of highly toxic reagents. The aromatic components in a soil extract are measured by absorption at 254 nm with a field-portable photometer. WRI added significant value to the technology by taking the method through the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) approval and validation processes. The method is designated as ASTM Method D 5831-96, Standard Test Method for Screening Fuels in Soils. This ASTM designation allows the method to be used for federal compliance activities. In June 2001, the Diesel Dog technology won an American Chemical Society Regional Industrial Innovations Award. To gain field experience with the new technology, Diesel Dog kits have been used for a variety of site evaluation and cleanup activities. Information gained from these activities has led to improvements in hardware configurations and additional insight into correlating Diesel Dog results with results from laboratory methods. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) used Diesel Dog Soil Test Kits to guide cleanups at a variety of sites throughout the state. ENSR, of Acton, Massachusetts, used a Diesel Dog Portable Soil Test Kit to evaluate sites in the Virgin Islands and Georgia. ChemTrack and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers successfully used a test kit to guide excavation at an abandoned FAA fuel-contaminated site near Fairbanks, Alaska. Barenco, Inc. is using a Diesel Dog Portable Soil Test Kit for site evaluations in Canada. A small spill of diesel fuel was cleaned up in Laramie, Wyoming using a Diesel Dog Soil Test Kit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".