MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025011177 · doi:10.1021/es0708464

Comparing WHAM 6 and MINEQL+ 4.5 for the Chemical Speciation of Cu<sup>2+</sup> in the Rhizosphere of Forest Soils

2007· article· en· W2025011177 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Benoît Cloutier‐Hurteau, Sébastien Sauvé, François Courchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenetic algorithmDissolved organic carbonRhizosphereChemistryEnvironmental chemistrySoil waterSoil pHSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal speciation data calculated by modeling could give useful information regarding the fate of metals in the rhizospheric environment. However, no comparative study has evaluated the relative accuracy of speciation models in this microenvironment. Consequently, the present study evaluates the reliability of free Cu ion (Cu2+) activity modeled by WHAM 6 and MINEQL+ 4.5 for 18 bulk and 18 rhizospheric soil samples collected in two Canadian forested areas located near industrial facilities. The modeling of Cu speciation was performed on water extracts using pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), major ions, and total dissolved Al, Ca, Cu, Mg, and Zn concentrations as input data. Four scenarios representing the composition of dissolved organic substances using fulvic, humic, and acetic acids were derived from the literature and used in the modeling exercise. Different scenarios were used to contrast soil components (rhizosphere vs bulk) and soil pH levels (acidic vs neutral to alkaline). Reference Cu2+ activity values measured by an ion-selective electrode varied between 0.39 and 41 nM. The model MINEQL+ 4.5 provided good predictions of Cu2+ activities [root-mean-square residual (RMSR)= 0.37], while predictions from WHAM 6 were poor (RMSR = 1.74) because they overestimated Cu complexation with DOC. Modeling with WHAM 6 could be improved by adjusting the proportion of inert DOC and the composition of DOC (RMSR = 0.94), but it remained weaker than predictions with MINEQL+ 4.5. These results suggested that the discrepancies between speciation models were attributed to differences in the binding capacity of humic substances with Cu, where WHAM 6 appeared to be too aggressive. Therefore, we concluded that chemical interactions occurring between Cu and DOC were key factors for an accurate simulation of Cu speciation, especially in rhizospheric forest soils, where high variation of the DOC concentration and composition are observed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207