MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111065660 · doi:10.1139/s03-075

Leaching behavior of metolachlor in soil

2004· article· en· W2111065660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasser El‐Nahhal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsMetolachlorMontmorilloniteLeaching (pedology)BioassayEnvironmental chemistryChemistryAdsorptionSoil testSoil waterEnvironmental sciencePesticideSoil scienceAgronomyEcologyOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work estimated the leaching behavior of metolachlor from montmorillonite-based and commercial emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulations in soil columns and field plots by using bioassay and chemical techniques. A montmorillonite-based formulation of metolachlor was prepared by adsorbing metolachlor to montmorillonite–benzyltrimethylammonium (BTMA) complex from aqueous solution. Bioassay and gas chromatography (GC) techniques detected high metolachlor concentrations in the top soil layers (0–9 cm) in soil columns and field plots sprayed with montmorillonite–BTMA–metolachlor complex. These results were also evident by severe growth inhibition restricted to the top soil layers (0–9 cm) and normal growth at deeper layers in soil columns and field plots. A wider range of metolachlor concentrations were detected in soil layers in columns treated with EC formulation in both soil columns and field plots. Relatively higher metolachlor concentrations were detected in the soil layers in field plots than in soil columns. A bioassay technique was a more sensitive tool than chemical technique and detected diluted concentration of metolachlor at deeper layers. The different leaching behavior of metolachlor applied as montmorillonite–BTMA complex is due to the adsorption capacity of montmorillonite–BTMA complex. Key words: metolachlor, montmorillonite–BTMA, leaching, soil columns, field plots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207