OIL DROPLET SIZE DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF ENERGY DISSIPATION RATE IN AN EXPERIMENTAL WAVE TANK
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005) identified two factors that require further investigation in chemical oil dispersant efficacy studies: 1) quantification of mixing energy at sea as energy dissipation rate and 2) dispersed particle size distribution. To fully evaluate the significance of these factors, a wave tank facility was designed and constructed to conduct controlled oil dispersion studies. A factorial experimental design was used to study the dispersant effectiveness as a function of energy dissipation rate for two oils and two dispersants under three different wave conditions, namely regular non-breaking waves, spilling breakers, and plunging breakers. The oils tested were weathered MESA and fresh ANS crude. The dispersants tested were Corexit 9500 and SPC 1000 plus water for no-dispersant control. The wave tank surface energy dissipatation rates of the three waves were determined to be 0.005, 0.1, and 1 m2/s3, respectively. The dispersed oil concentrations and droplet size distribution, measured by in-situ laser diffraction, were compared to quantify the chemical dispersant effectiveness as a function of energy dissipation rate. The results indicate that high energy dissipation rate of breaking waves enhanced chemical dispersant effectiveness by significantly increasing dispersed oil concentration and reducing droplet sizes in the water column (p <0.05). The presence of dispersants and breaking waves stimulated the oil dispersion kinetics. The findings of this research are expected to provide guidance to disperant application on oil spill responses.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it