Potential for Identifying Abiotic Chloroalkane Degradation Mechanisms using Carbon Isotopic Fractionation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degradation of 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCA) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) on Zn0 was investigated using compound specific isotope analysis (CSIA) to measure isotopic fractionation factors for chloroalkane degradation by hydrogenolysis, by alpha-elimination, and by beta-elimination. Significant differences in enrichment factors (epsilon) and associated apparent kinetic isotope effects (AKIE) were measured for these different reaction pathways, suggesting that carbon isotope fractionation by beta-elimination is substantially larger than fractionation by hydrogenolysis or by alpha-elimination. Specifically, for 1,1-DCA, the isotopic composition of the reductive alpha-elimination product (ethane) and the hydrogenolysis product (chloroethane) were the same, indicating that cleavage of a single C-Cl bond was the rate-limiting step in both cases. In contrast, for 1,2-DCA, epsilon = epsilon(reactive position) = -29.7 +/- 1.5% per hundred, and the calculated AKIE (1.03) indicated that beta-elimination was likely concerted, possibly involving two C-Cl bonds simultaneously. Compared to 1,1-DCA hydrogenolysis, the AKIE of 1.01 for hydrogenolysis of CCl4 was much lower, indicating that, for this highly reactive organohalide, mass transfer to the surface was likely partially rate-limiting. These findings are a first step toward delineating the relative contribution of these competing pathways in other abiotic systems such as the degradation of chlorinated ethenes on zerovalent iron (ZVI), iron sulfide, pyrite, or magnetite, and, potentially, toward distinguishing between degradation of chlorinated ethenes by abiotic versus biotic processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".