The role of soil humic and fulvic acid in the sorption of endosulfan (alpha and beta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sorption behaviour of alpha- and beta-endosulfan in soil organic matter was investigated using standard soil humic acid (HA) and soil fulvic acid (FA) with a modified solubility enhancement method and a dialysis bag technique. For HA, all the experiments were conducted at an ionic strength of 0.001 mol/L, in both the presence and absence of calcium and at an ionic strength of 0.01 mol/L. For FA, the experiments were conducted at two ionic strengths: 0.001 mol/L (with calcium) and 0.01 mol/L. This study is the first to describe the striking differences in the sorption behaviours of the two stereoisomers of endosulfan in HA and in FA. The sorption coefficients of alpha-endosulfan in HA and FA were significantly higher than those of beta-endosulfan. Beta-endosulfan has comparable sorption coefficients (1.5–5.4 L/g) in HA and in FA. Ionic strength and the presence of calcium have no significant effect on the sorption of beta-endosulfan in HA. However, calcium can significantly (p=0.01) enhance the solubility of alpha-endosulfan in HA. Changes in ionic strength by one order of magnitude also affect the solubility of alpha-endosulfan in HA. The sorption coefficients of alpha-endosulfan in HA (10–36 L/g) were greater than those in FA (9–14 L/g). The chirality of the alpha-isomer was hypothesised to be the primary reason behind its higher sorption in soil organic matter relative to the beta-isomer. In the presence of dissolved HA and FA found in natural soil environments, solubility of endosulfan can be increased by five times than the aqueous solubility of endosulfan without HA and FA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".