Phytotoxicity and naphthenic acid dissipation from oil sands fine tailings treatments planted with the emergent macrophyte<i>Phragmites australis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During reclamation the water associated with the runoff or groundwater flushing from dry stackable tailings technologies may become available to the reclaimed environment within an oil sands lease. Here we evaluate the performance of the emergent macrophyte, common reed (Phragmites australis), grown in chemically amended mature fine tailings (MFT) and simulated runoff/seepage water from different MFT drying treatments. The present study also investigated the phytotoxicity of the concentration of oil sands naphthenic acids (NAs) in different MFT drying chemical treatments, in both planted and unplanted systems. We demonstrate that although growth was reduced, the emergent macrophyte common reed was capable of growing in diluted unamended MFT runoff, as well as in diluted runoff from MFT amended with either 0.25% lime and gypsum or 0.5% gypsum. Common reed can thus assist in the dewatering process of oil sands MFT. However, simulated runoff or seepage waters from chemically amended and dried MFT were phytotoxic, due to combined levels of salts, naphthenic acids and pH. Phytoremediation of runoff water/ground water seepage from dry-land applied MFT will thus require pre-treatment in order to make conditions more favorable for plant growth.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".