Evaluation of an Acid Ammonium Oxalate Extraction to Determine Fluoride Resident Concentrations in Soils
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluoride depositions near aluminum smelters and other fluoride-emitting plants can lead to fluoride accumulation in soils, which constitutes a risk for ground water contamination. This study was conducted to investigate the capacity of a 0.2 M acid ammonium oxalate solution to selectively and quantitatively extract fluoride accumulated in soils. The recovery of fluoride added to three soils was evaluated following 7- to 28-d incubations. Oxalate extraction was also compared with a total fluoride extraction method, using oxalate-extractable fluoride (Fox) and total fluoride (Ftot) accumulation profiles derived from column percolation experiments. To determine low-level fluoride concentrations without interference from high Al and Fe concentrations, an adapted ion chromatography method was used. Following soil incubations, oxalate extracted 42 to 86% of added fluoride. Recovery varied between soils and, in one soil, increased with added fluoride concentration. Recovery was unaffected by incubation time. Maximum recovery was obtained in a soil high in amorphous Fe and Al, low in clay, and free of carbonate. Lower recoveries were obtained in soils with higher clay or carbonate contents. Only 4 to 8% of Ftot was extracted in untreated samples using Fox, which suggests a high selectivity of this method for added fluoride. In percolation experiments, the use of Fox reduced considerably the background noise associated with Ftot for the evaluation of fluoride accumulation profiles. Because of its high selectivity and despite incomplete fluoride recovery, the use of Fox to determine fluoride resident concentrations in soils may improve environmental monitoring of fluoride accumulation and movement in contaminated soils.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it