MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006100786 · doi:10.2166/wst.2006.176

The effect of Fe(0) on electrokinetic remediation of clay contaminated with perchloroethylene

2006· article· en· W2006100786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chongli Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationElectrokinetic phenomenaElectrokinetic remediationTetrachloroethyleneChemistryAnodeCathodeContaminationPermeable reactive barrierEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryTrichloroethyleneElectrodeEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper was to investigate the effect of Fe(0) reaction barrier position and Fe(0) quantity on the remediation efficiency and electrokinetic performances of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contaminated clay under potential gradient of 2 V/cm for 5 days. The Fe(0) reaction barrier was composed of 2 to approximately 16 g of Fe(0) mixed with Ottawa sand in a ratio of 1: 2. Its positions were respectively located at the anode, the middle, and the cathode end of the electrokinetic cell. Results showed that a relatively higher remediation of 66% of PCE was found as the Fe(0) reaction barrier located at the cathode side, which corresponded to a factor 2.4 times greater than that in the EK system alone (27.0%). As the Fe(0) quantity increased to 16 g, a highest remediation efficiency of 90.7% was found. It was concluded that the PCE removal in the EK/Fe(0) system was dominated by Fe(0) quantity rather than the Fe(0) reaction barrier position. As more Fe(0) existed in the EK system, a higher electroosmosis flow, higher permeability, and lower soil pH after treatment were found. The cost analyses were also investigated in this research.

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 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207