Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for speciation of vanadium in soil is presented in this work. The sequential extraction analysis procedure of Tessier et al. for heavy metals was used for the vanadium separation. The method consists of sequential leaching of the soil samples to separate five fractions of metals: (1) exchangeable, (2) bound to carbonates, (3) bound to Fe-Mn oxides, (4) bound to organic matter and (5) residual. The leaching solutions of Tessier were used for the vanadium extraction, only for the residual fraction the HClO(4) was replaced with H(2)SO(4). The optimum conditions for leaching of vanadium from soil (weight of sample, concentration and volume of extractants, time of extraction) were chosen for each fraction. A sensitive, spectrophotometric method based on the ternary complex V(IV) with Chrome Azurol S and benzyldodecyldimethylammonium bromide (epsilon=7.1x10(4) l mol(-1) cm(-1)) was applied for the vanadium determination after separation of V(V) by solvent extraction using mesityl oxide and reduction of V(V) using ascorbic acid. This method was applied for vanadium speciation in soil from two different regions of Poland: Upper Silesia (industrial region) and Podlasie (agricultural region). The content of vanadium in the fractions of Upper Silesia soil was respectively (in 10(-3)%): I, 3.39; III, 4.53; IV, 10.70; V, 8.70 and it was the highest in the organic fraction, indicating input by anthropogenic activities. The content of vanadium in Podlasie soil was clearly lower and it was (in 10(-3)%): I, 2.07; III, 0.92; IV, 0.69; V, 1.23. The concentration of vanadium in fraction 2 of both soils was less than detection limit of applied method. The total content of vanadium in the five soil fractions was in good correlation with the total content of this element in both soils found after HF-H(2)SO(4) digestion. Analysis using the ICP-AES method gave comparable 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".