Geoenvironmental Assessment of Two Tropical Clayey Soils for use as Engineered Liner Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the global focus on waste reduction, re-use and recycling, the use of engineered landfills with either single or composite lining systems is, and will continue to be a major waste disposal method. The use of composite lining systems in landfills to effectively minimize the discharge of contaminants to groundwater is not common in most tropical, developing countries. In addition, there is also a lack of data on the performance of tropical clayey soils as liners. Adopting liner technology developed in temperate regions for application in the tropics may not be practical and cost-effective, as there are significant differences in geological, environmental and material properties in the two regions. In order to develop or reliably adopt a practical and cost-effective liner technology for tropical environments, geoenvironmental assessment of tropical soils during their interactions with the intended leachate must be undertaken. A study was undertaken to determine the suitability of two clayey soils from Ghana (West Africa) as engineered landfill liner materials. The hydraulic conductivity, before and after permeation with municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill leachate, was evaluated in a constant-flow fixed wall permeameter. The impact of the permeant on the hydraulic conductivity, mineralogy, chemical composition and some geotechnical properties of the clayey soils are presented. The results of the study suggest that the tropical soils may be used effectively as liners to minimize the discharge of contaminants into groundwater.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".