Storage of oil field-produced waters alters their chemical and microbiological characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many oil fields are in remote locations, and the time required for shipment of produced water samples for microbiological examination may be lengthy. No studies have reported on how storage of oil field waters can change their characteristics. Produced water samples from three Alberta oil fields were collected in sterile, industry-approved 4-l epoxy-lined steel cans, sealed with minimal headspace and stored under anoxic conditions for 14 days at either 4 degrees C or room temperature (ca. 21 degrees C). Storage resulted in significant changes in water chemistry, microbial number estimates and/or community response to amendment with nitrate. During room-temperature storage, activity and growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria (and, to a lesser extent, fermenters and methanogens) in the samples led to significant changes in sulfide, acetate and propionate concentrations as well as a significant increase in most probable number estimates, particularly of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Sulfide production during room-temperature storage was likely to be responsible for the altered response to nitrate amendment observed in microcosms containing sulfidogenic samples. Refrigerated storage suppressed sulfate reduction and growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria. However, declines in sulfide concentrations were observed in two of the three samples stored at 4 degrees C, suggesting abiotic losses of sulfide. In one of the samples stored at room temperature, nitrate amendment led to ammonification. These results demonstrate that storage of oil field water samples for 14 days, such as might occur because of lengthy transport times or delays before analysis in the laboratory, can affect microbial numbers and activity as well as water sample chemistry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".