MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2021316143 · doi:10.1139/t00-067

The effect of temperature on adsorption of organic compounds to soils

2001· article· en· W2021316143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brent E. Sleep, Paul D. McClure

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorptionAdsorptionNaphthaleneSoil waterChemistryTolueneEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental chemistryThermodynamicsContaminationSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Column experiments were performed at 22–25°, 50°, and 92°C to study the effect of temperature on the sorption of toluene, perchloroethylene, and naphthalene to a silty gravel-till aquifer material. A one-dimensional numerical model incorporating kinetic adsorption with gamma-distributed rate constants was developed and fit to the data. As temperature was increased from 22–25° to 90°C, sorption coefficients decreased by 35, 40, and 60% for toluene, perchloroethylene, and naphthalene, respectively. The means and variances of the gamma distributions for sorption rate constants both increased as temperature increased. The increases in variance were attributed to the short contact times of the experiments and the increased sorption rates at higher temperatures. The decreases in sorption coefficients and increases in sorption rate constants as temperature is increased suggest that thermal remediation techniques such as hot-water and steam flushing may accelerate the removal of sorbed organic soil contamination.Key words: sorption, nonequilibrium, temperature dependence, thermal remediation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→