MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030567520 · doi:10.1002/rem.1014

Field Trial of Biosparging with Oxygen for Bioremediation of Volatile Organic Compounds

2001· article· en· W2030567520 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth L. Sperry, Christian Stanley, James Clarkson Kay

Bibliographic record

VenueRemediation Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenicBioremediationBenzeneEnvironmental chemistryGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceOxygenPrecipitationContaminationEnvironmental engineeringChemistryWaste managementMeteorologyGeologyEcologyGeographyEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Xpert Design & Diagnostics, LLC (XDD), & Conestoga‐Rovers and Associates (CRA) conducted a biosparging field trial at a Superfund site in New Jersey. The biosparging field trial proved that biosparging with oxygen was very effective in promoting the biological destruction of benzene. The approximately 265‐day period of oxygen injection successfully reduced benzene concentrations by several orders of magnitude, or even to non‐detect values, at least 40 feet from the point of injection. Through co‐precipitation of arsenic with oxidized iron, biosparging also effectively reduced total concentrations of arsenic and iron in groundwater. Based on the results of the biosparging field trial, the final remedy for the site has been amended to include the use of biosparging technology as an alternative to groundwater pumping and aboveground treatment in select locations. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemediation JournalSame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207