Carbon and Hydrogen Isotopic Fractionation during Anaerobic Biodegradation of Benzene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compound-specific isotope analysis has the potential to distinguish physical from biological attenuation processes in the subsurface. In this study, carbon and hydrogen isotopic fractionation effects during biodegradation of benzene under anaerobic conditions with different terminal-electron-accepting processes are reported for the first time. Different enrichment factors (epsilon ) for carbon (range of -1.9 to -3.6 per thousand ) and hydrogen (range of -29 to -79 per thousand ) fractionation were observed during biodegradation of benzene under nitrate-reducing, sulfate-reducing, and methanogenic conditions. These differences are not related to differences in initial biomass or in rates of biodegradation. Carbon isotopic enrichment factors for anaerobic benzene biodegradation in this study are comparable to those previously published for aerobic benzene biodegradation. In contrast, hydrogen enrichment factors determined for anaerobic benzene biodegradation are significantly larger than those previously published for benzene biodegradation under aerobic conditions. A fundamental difference in the previously proposed initial step of aerobic versus proposed anaerobic biodegradation pathways may account for these differences in hydrogen isotopic fractionation. Potentially, C-H bond breakage in the initial step of the anaerobic benzene biodegradation pathway may account for the large fractionation observed compared to that in aerobic benzene biodegradation. Despite some differences in reported enrichment factors between cultures with different terminal-electron-accepting processes, carbon and hydrogen isotope analysis has the potential to provide direct evidence of anaerobic biodegradation of benzene in the field.
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".