Extraction of Hexavalent Chromium from Chromated Copper Arsenate Treated Wood under Alkaline Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on chromium (Cr) oxidation states is essential for the assessment of environmental and health risks associated with the overall life-cycle of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood products because of differences in toxicity between trivalent [Cr(III)] and hexavalent [Cr(VI)] chromium compounds. Hypothetical Cr(VI) fixation products were investigated in CCA type C treated sawdust of aspen and red pine during or following preservative fixation by extraction with Cr(VI)-specific extractants. Cr(VI) was found only in alkaline extracts of treated wood. A major source of Cr(VI) was method-induced oxidation of fixed Cr(III) during alkaline extraction, as confirmed by demonstrated oxidation of Cr(III) from CrCl3 treated wood. Oxidation of nontoxic and immobile Cr(III) to toxic and mobile Cr(VI) was facilitated by the presence of wood at pH > 8.5. Thermodynamic equilibrium between Cr(III) and Cr(VI) is affected by pH, temperature, rates of dissolution of CrIII) compounds, and oxygen availability. Results of this study recommend against alkaline extraction protocols for determination of Cr(VI) in treated wood. This Cr oxidation mechanism can act as a previously unrecognized route for generation of hazardous Cr(VI) if CCA treated wood is exposed to alkaline conditions during its production, use, or waste management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".