Binding of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants to Humalite-Derived Aqueous Humic Products, with Implications for Remediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In order to assess the potential of commercial humic products in environmental remediation, their binding to heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachloroethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and n-hexane was measured. The binding was similar in tests with two colloidal-phase humic products prepared from humalite (naturally occurring, oxidized organic deposits found adjacent to coal) from Alberta, Canada (Luscar Ltd.). There were minor or negligible changes in binding strength for these two products over the full range of aqueous concentrations tested (1.67 to 33.4 g organic C/L), and for Aldrich humic acid. Aldrich humic acid was a stronger binder of the hydrophobic organic compounds than the two Luscar humic products, by factors of approximately 3 to 7. The binding of hydrophobic organics to the two Luscar humic products was similar in strength to that predicted for humic substances that occur in natural aquatic environments. Our binding data suggest that the use of concentrated Luscar humic products as colloidal-phase flushing agents would increase the aqueous concentrations of some hydrophobic organic contaminants in soils or aquifers by up to several hundred fold.
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) | 0.002 | 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".