MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325961036 · doi:10.1021/es506223a

Dual Mechanism Conceptual Model for Cr Isotope Fractionation during Reduction by Zerovalent Iron under Saturated Flow Conditions

2015· article· en· W2325961036 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia H. Jamieson-Hanes, Richard T. Amos, David W. Blowes, Carol J. Ptacek

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChromium effects and bioremediation
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFractionationIsotope fractionationChemistryChromiumEquilibrium fractionationIsotopeMass-independent fractionationStable isotope ratioAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Isotope analysisChromatographyGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromium isotope analysis is rapidly becoming a valuable complementary tool for tracking Cr(VI) treatment in groundwater. Evaluation of various treatment materials has demonstrated that the degree of isotope fractionation is a function of the reaction mechanism, where reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) induces the largest fractionation. However, it has also been observed that uniform flow conditions can contribute complexity to isotope measurements. Here, laboratory batch and column experiments were conducted to assess Cr isotope fractionation during Cr(VI) reduction by zerovalent iron under both static and saturated flow conditions. Isotope measurements were accompanied by traditional aqueous geochemical measurements (pH, Eh, concentrations) and solid-phase analysis by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Increasing δ(53)Cr values were associated with decreasing Cr(VI) concentrations, which indicates reduction; solid-phase analysis showed an accumulation of Cr(III) on the iron. Reactive transport modeling implemented a dual mechanism approach to simulate the fractionation observed in the experiments. The faster heterogeneous reaction pathway was associated with minimal fractionation (ε=-0.2‰), while the slower homogeneous pathway exhibited a greater degree of fractionation (ε=-0.9‰ for the batch experiment, and ε=-1.5‰ for the column experiment).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicChromium effects and bioremediationFrench-language works237,207