MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893923987 · doi:10.1002/rem.21440

Application of an Adapted Version of MT3DMS for Modeling Back-Diffusion Remediation Timeframes

2015· article· en· W1893923987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemediation Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusionEnvironmental remediationSiltGroundwaterDiscretizationMechanicsSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyContaminationMathematicsPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulation of back-diffusion remediation timeframe for thin silt/clay layers, or when contaminant degradation is occurring, typically requires the use of a numerical model. Given the centimeter-scale vertical grid spacing required to represent diffusion-dominated transport, simulation of back-diffusion in a 3-D model may be computationally prohibitive. Use of a local 1-D model domain approach for simulating back-diffusion is demonstrated to have advantages but is limited to only some applications. Incorporation of a local domain approach for simulating back-diffusion in a new model, In Situ Remediation-MT3DMS (ISR-MT3DMS) is validated based on a benchmark with MT3DMS and comparisons with a highly discretized finite difference numerical model. The approach used to estimate the vertical hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient is shown to have a significant influence on the simulated flux into and out of silt/clay layers in early time periods. Previously documented back-diffusion at a Florida site is modeled for the purpose of evaluating the sensitivity of the back-diffusion controlled remediation timeframe to various site characteristics. A base case simulation with a clay lens having a thickness of 0.2 m and a length of 100 m indicates that even after 99.96 percent aqueous TCE removal from the clay lens, the down-gradient concentrations still exceed the MCL in groundwater monitoring wells. This shows that partial mass reduction from a NAPL source zone via in situ treatment may have little benefit for the long-term management of contaminated sites, given that back-diffusion will sustain a groundwater plume for a long period of time. Back-diffusion model input parameters that have the greatest influence on remediation timeframe and thus may warrant more attention during field investigations, include the thickness of silt/clay lenses, retardation coefficient representing sorbed mass in silt/clay, and the groundwater velocity in adjacent higher permeability zones. Therefore, pump-and-treat systems implemented for the purpose of providing containment may have an additional benefit of reducing back-diffusion remediation timeframe due to enhanced transverse advective fluxes at the sand/clay interface. Remediation timeframes are also moderately sensitive to the length of the silt/clay layers and transverse vertical dispersivity, but are less sensitive to degradation rates within silt/clay, contaminant solubility, contact time, tortuosity coefficient, and monitoring well-screen length for the scenarios examined. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · 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