Correlation of δ<sup>15</sup>N and δ<sup>18</sup>O in NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> during denitrification in groundwater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen are important tools for investigating the occurrence of denitrification in groundwater. Previous investigators have noted a linear relationship between δ15N and δ18O field data collected from shallow groundwater systems, but the reason for such a linear correlation is not clear. In this study, we represent denitrification reactions using parallel, first-order kinetics, and reaction rate constants that depend on the nitrogen or oxygen isotope present in nitrate. The derived mathematical relationship between δ15N and δ18O indicates that nitrogen and oxygen isotopes should fractionate at a constant ratio. Using the laboratory reaction rate constants obtained by Olleros (1983), our equations give a theoretical fractionation ratio value of b = 0.51. A review of published field studies in which denitrification in groundwater has been confirmed, and δ15N and δ18O data has been collected, shows that the mean fractionation ratio value is 0.55 (standard deviation = 0.08, n = 6). The field values therefore agree well with the predicted fractionation ratio value of b = 0.51. It is concluded that a linear relationship between δ15N and δ18O values, with a slope (b) close to 0.51, provides additional, unambiguous evidence that denitrification is responsible for nitrate concentration decline and enrichment in nitrogen isotope values in shallow groundwater. Key words: nitrate, groundwater, denitrification, isotopes, enrichment factor, fractionation ratio.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".