Degradation and Ecotoxicity of C14 Linear Alpha Olefin Drill Cuttings in the Laboratory and the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laboratory and field studies were conducted on C14 linear alpha olefin (LAO) mud drill cuttings. In the laboratory, LAO drill cuttings applied to a loam soil at a total extractable hydrocarbon (TEH) concentration of 4.8% (wt:wt) degraded by 92% to a TEH residual of 0.38% after 3 months. This residual was nontoxic to plants, earthworms, springtails and Microtox™ bacteria based on both acute and chronic toxicity bioassays. Earthworm growth and reproduction after 2 months exposure to soil with remediated LAO cuttings were greater than in the untreated soil. In the field, LAO cuttings were spread over a silty loam soil in southern Alberta at an inital concentration of 3.1% (wt:wt) during the fall. The following spring the field was tilled, fertilized and planted with barley. The LAO in the soil degraded by 68% to a 1% LAO level by harvest (11 months treatment), and was further reduced to 0.25% after 23 months of landfarming treatment. At 1% LAO, barley growth was not significantly reduced in the laboratory or the field. In contrast, 1% LAO significantly inhibited earthworm growth and reproduction, and killed the springtails. The Microtox™ bioassay revealed no toxicity in water extracts of the soil. Co-composting studies in northern British Columbia involved mixing LAO cuttings with wood fibre at a ratio of 1:3 and applying fertilizer. After 22 months treatment, the TEH at two separate sites had decreased by 95%, from initial concentrations of 8.1 and 15.2% to final concentrations of 0.4 and 0.6%, respectively. Results to date indicate that C14 LAO drill cuttings degrade readily under both laboratory and field conditions, and that both landfarming and co-composting are effective means for eliminating and detoxifying C14 LAOs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".