A proposed method for rapid and economical extraction of petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) are common soil contaminants. A number of methods have been used to extract PHCs from soil prior to quantification by gas chromatography (GC). These methods often require long extraction times and expensive, specialized equipment. A shaking method was assessed for simple, rapid removal of PHCs from contaminated soils. Shaking spiked and aged contaminated soils for 4 h with acetone:hexane (1:1) at a soil:solvent ratio of 1:30 (g:mL) recovered 74 to 108% of PHC, compared with a Soxhlet extraction, yielding a good correlation (4 h = −93.7 + 0.99 Soxhlet r = 0.99, P < 0.001). Preliminary results show that this 4-h procedure has potential for the quick, inexpensive extraction of PHCs from contaminated soils. Key words: Petroleum hydrocarbons, soil analysis, extraction method, gas chromatography, Soxhlet extraction
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".