The effects of naturally occurring acids on the surface properties of chrysotile asbestos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chrysotile asbestos is considered an environmental health hazard. It is postulated that the surface of chrysotile, with its inherent positive charge and chemical content of trace transition metals within the mineral is a causative factor of the concern. Weathering may reduce the negative health effects of chrysotile asbestos, by alteration of the outer brucite layer of the chrysotile. To assess the changes in the surface properties of chrysotile asbestos by simulated weathering, chrysotile was treated with oxalic, hydrochloric, and carbonic acids. Naturally occurring chrysotile, from a mine site and serpentinitic stream sediments from the Sumas River were analyzed and compared. Oxalic acid, a chelating acid, was the most effective at extracting the majority of the trace elements present in the chrysotile, reducing their positive surface charge and producing visible changes at the surface of the fibers as shown by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microsopy (FESEM). Carbonic acid had little effect on the surface properties. Stream environments had minor detectable effects on the surface properties on the chrysotile stream sediments.
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".