MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1809862795 · doi:10.1109/oceans.2005.1640095

A comparison of PAHs in produced water discharges and flared gas emissions to the ocean

2005· article· en· W1809862795 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelly Hawboldt, Sara Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutfallEnvironmental scienceSeawaterProduced waterEnvironmental chemistryDispersion (optics)PollutionVolume (thermodynamics)Environmental engineeringSubmarine pipelineChemistryGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Produced water represents the single largest source of marine pollution in terms of toxicity and volume from an offshore platform in the production stage of oil and gas operations. In the past few years increasing attention has focused on the presence and possible impact of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in produced water. Studies have shown that the concentration of the 16 EPA PAHs can vary from 0.7 to 100s mg/L in produced water. However, particularly on oil platforms, the flaring of produced gas can also be a significant source of PAHs. A study by the Alberta Research Council in 1996 identified many PAHs in the emissions from the flared produced gas (up to 300 mg/m/sup 3/ for the 16 EPA PAHs). It is likely that much of the PAHs in the flared emissions will end up in the water and so should be assessed against the produced water input of PAHs. However, it is difficult to compare concentrations in the flared emissions and produced water outfall directly as the dispersion in each media, characteristics of the flare stack and outfall, and meteorological conditions are all factors in mass input into the water. In this study the concentration of PAHs in the emissions was converted to an emission rate and input into an air dispersion model. The maximum ground level concentrations were determined with the model and then converted to a seawater concentration using a simple equilibrium model. The produced water outfall was simulated using CORMIX and the resulting concentrations were compared with the air dispersion model results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact→French-language works237,207→