MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laboratory Evaluation of the Use of Surfactants for Ground Water Remediation and the Potential for Recycling Them

2001· article· en· W1983333617 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroundwater Monitoring & Remediation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringChemistryEngineeringContaminationEcologyBiologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The primary goal of this study was to develop a suitable experimental and laboratory methodology for investigating the efficiency of surfactants in removing hydrophobic contaminants from sand and the efficient recovery of used surfactant solutions for reuse. One of the goals of this study was to test the use of a hydrophile‐lipophile balance (HLB) number as a suitable selection criterion. We used toluene as a model contaminant, Ottawa sand as a model porous medium, and six nontoxic, water‐soluble anionic or nonionic surfactants with HLB numbers ranging from 12 to greater than 25. Four of the six surfactants were judged to be less suitable on the basis of their properties (less suitable HLB and surface tension), and on batch experiments using separatory funnel, shaker table, and centrifugation methods. The two most suitable surfactants were trideceth‐19‐carboxylic acid (TDCA), an anionic surfactant, and polyoxypropylene‐polyoxyethylene block copolymer (POP‐POE), a nonionic surfactant. These two surfactants were then used for sand column leach experiments, and two of the less suitable surfactants were also investigated to determine if HLB number and batch experiments satisfactorily predicted leaching effectiveness. In sand column experiments, an aqueous surfactant solution containing a mixture of 1% anionic and 1% nonionic surfactant in a 1.6% NaOH solution was the most effective in removing the toluene. Removal efficiency of alkylaryl ethoxylate carboxylic acid (AECA), which has an HLB number of 19, was only slightly less than for the chemically similar TDCA, but that of dioctyl sulfosuccinate (DOSS) with an HLB greater than 25 was much less effective. These results indicate that HLB number alone is not a perfect indicator of surfactant effectiveness for leaching hydrophobic contaminants because the chemical structure of the surfactant is also important. In the counter‐current solvent extraction experiments designed to allow reuse of surfactants, the anionic surfactant solution (2% TDCA) was the most effectively recycled.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.205 · 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