MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055284934 · doi:10.1139/s04-065

Remediation of flare pit soils using supercritical fluid extraction

2005· article· en· W2055284934 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Varima Nagpal, Selma E. Guigard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationLoamSupercritical fluid extractionSoil waterExtraction (chemistry)Supercritical fluidSupercritical carbon dioxideChemistryEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceChromatographyContamination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is a promising remediation technology for contaminated soils. This work investigates the use of SFE to remove petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) from flare pit soils. Extractions were performed on two flare pit soils at pressures ranging from 11.0 to 24.1 MPa and at temperatures ranging from 40 to 80 °C in an attempt to identify the best extraction conditions and to understand the effects of pressure, temperature, supercritical fluid flow rate, soil type, and extraction time on the extraction efficiency. For the conditions studied, the efficiency of the SFE process appeared to be solvent-density dependent. Conditions of 24.1 MPa and 40 °C (highest supercritical fluid density) yielded the highest extraction efficiency for both soils (89% for the sand and 80% for the loam). An increase in temperature at a fixed pressure led to a decrease in the extraction efficiency while an increase in pressure at a fixed temperature led to an increase in the extraction efficiency. The treated soils appeared to be drier, grainy, and lighter coloured than the soil prior to extraction.Key words: supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), supercritical carbon dioxide, flare pit soils, contaminated soil, soil remediation, biorecalcitrant petroleum hydrocarbons.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207