In‐Well Degassing Issues for Measurements of Dissolved Gases in Groundwater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of dissolved gases in groundwater is becoming increasingly common and important. Many of these measurements involve monitoring or sampling within wells or from water pumped from wells. We used total dissolved gas pressure (TDGP) sensors placed in the screened section of various wells (4 to 72 m deep) to assess the dissolved gas conditions for open wells compared to the conditions when sealed (i.e., isolated from the atmosphere) with a hydraulic packer (one well) or when pumped. When the packer was installed (non-pumping conditions), TDGP rose from <1.7 to >3.1 atm (<172 to >314 kPa), with declines noted when the packer was removed or deflated. While pumping, TDGP measured in many of the wells rose to substantially higher levels, up to 4.0 atm (408 kPa) in one case. Thus, when groundwater is gas charged, the background aquifer TDGP, and likewise the dissolved gas concentrations, may be substantially higher than initially measured in open wells, indicating significant in-well degassing. This raises concerns about past and current methods of measuring the dissolved gases in groundwater. Additional procedures that may be required to obtain representative measurements from wells include (1) installing in-well hydraulic packers to seal the well, or (2) pumping to bring in fresh groundwater. However, observed transient decreased TDGPs during pumping, believed to result from gas bubble formation induced by drawdown in the well below a critical pressure (relative to TDGP), may disrupt the measurements made during or after pumping. Thus, monitoring TDGP while pumping gas-charged wells is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".