Full‐scale <i>in situ</i> bioremediation of hexachlorocyclohexane‐contaminated soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Daramend bioremediation technology was used to treat 1100 tonnes of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)‐contaminated soil at a former lindane manufacturing plant. Half of the site (area A) was treated using a cycled anoxic/oxic treatment, and the other half (area B) was treated under oxic conditions. Each area was divided east to west into five zones. A control area (area C) consisted of strips of soil along the north and east edges of the site. Total HCH concentrations along a west to east gradient ranged from 22 430 to 1069 mg kg−1 in area A and from 21 100 to 730 mg kg−1 in area B. Concentrations in area C ranged from 52 to 1427 mg kg−1. The soil was treated for 371 days, during which time seven anoxic/oxic cycles were completed in area A and regular tillage was performed on area B. Soil samples (one per zone) were collected after 154 and 371 days of treatment. After 371 days, total HCH concentrations were reduced in the most highly contaminated zones of areas A and B by 60% (from 22 430 to 8910 mg kg−1) and 75% (from 21 100 to 5120 mg kg−1), respectively. The average HCH reductions for all five zones of areas A and B were 40 and 47%, respectively, with the data indicating decreased concentrations of selected isomers in certain zones of both areas. Less substantial changes in HCH concentrations were observed in control area C. Elevated chloride ion concentrations were observed in zones that had demonstrated HCH removal. This full scale project demonstrated the potential for solid phase bioremediation treatment of soil containing high HCH concentrations. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
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) | 0.001 | 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".