Investigation into mechanisms leading to the development, spread and persistence of soil water repellency following contamination by crude oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated mechanisms by which soil water repellency may develop, spread and persist at old crude oil spill sites. We tested if its development may be due to soil sorption of vapour-phase petroleum compounds, its spread due to mechanical dispersal and mixing, and its persistence due to association of causative agents with humin and soil mineral surfaces. Development. Readily wettable soils acquired water repellency following 60 d of storage in the presence of oil-contaminated subsoil material. Change in soil wettability was attributed to soil sorption of vapour-phase petroleum compounds emanating from the contaminated material. We cite literature reports indicating that liquid-phase petroleum compounds can also cause soil water repellency. To that effect, we report how we tested and finally rejected the hypothesis that sorption of petroleum asphaltenes might be the sole cause of soil water repellency. Spread. We describe how mixing one mass unit of water-repellent soil with two to four mass units of wettable adjacent soil is sufficient to impart severe water repellency to soil mixes from three sites. Persistence. The water-repellent condition found at old crude oil spill sites is highly resistant to natural weathering and nondestructive extraction procedures. We show here that it also resists exhaustive extraction with 0.1 M NaOH and conclude that causative agents of soil water repellency are at least not solely associated with humic and fulvic acid fractions. Key words: Soil water repellency, asphaltenes, cultivation, humic acids, sorption, crude oil
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".