Evaluation of Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis Techniques At a Former Petrochemical Plant Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for soil gas sampling and analysis are evaluated as part of a research study on soil vapour intrusion into buildings, conducted at a former petro-chemical plant site ("Chatterton site"). The evaluation process was designed to provide information on reliability and selection of appropriate methods for soil gas sampling and analysis, and was based on a literature review of data and methods, and experiments completed as part of the research study. The broader context of this work is that soil gas characterization is increasingly being used for input into risk assessment of contaminated sites, particularly when evaluating the potential intrusion of soil vapour into buildings. There are only a limited number of research studies and protocols addressing soil gas sampling and analysis. There is significant variability in soil gas probe design and sample collection and analysis methods used by practitioners. The experimental studies conducted to evaluate soil gas methods address the permeation or leakage of gases from Tedlar bags, time-dependent sorption of volatile organic compound (VOC)-vapours onto probe surfaces and sampling devices, and analytical and quality control issues for light gas and VOC analyses. Through this work, common techniques for soil gas collection and analysis are described together with implications for data quality arising from the different methods used. Some of the potential pitfalls that can affect soil gas testing are identified, and recommendations and guidance for improved protocols are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 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".