Effect of Molecular Structure on the Relative Reactivity of Naphthenic Acids in the UV/H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> Advanced Oxidation Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large volume of oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) produced by the oil sands industry in Northern Alberta, Canada, is an environmental concern. The toxicity of OSPW has been attributed to a complex mixture of naturally occurring acids, including naphthenic acids (NAs). Highly cyclic or branched NAs are highly biopersistent in tailings ponds, thus understanding structure-reactivity relationship for NAs is very important for OSPW reclamation. In this study, we hypothesized that large, branched and cyclic NAs may be better oxidized in the UV/H(2)O(2) process than small, linear and acyclic NAs. Relative rate measurements using binary mixtures of model NA compounds confirmed that reactivity favored compounds with more carbons, and also favored NAs with one saturated ring, relative to the corresponding linear NA. However, for model compound with three rings, no increased reactivity was observed relative to monocyclic NA. UV/H(2)O(2) treatment of OSPW confirmed our findings with model compounds, indicating that the compounds with more carbons are favored for degradation. However, increasing the number of rings (or double bond equivalents) in OSPW NAs did not show any clear structure-reactivity. Microbial degradation studies of the UV/H(2)O(2) treated OSPW should be conducted to examine the overall benefit of this treatment for the real applications.
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 | 0.000 | 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".