MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383830409

Pollution characterization and source apportionment of HCH and DDT in sewage irrigation soil of Xiao Qing River wetland

2012· article· en· W2383830409 on OpenAlexaff
LI Yi-fan

Bibliographic record

VenueHa'erbin gongye daxue xuebao · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryIrrigationPollutionSewageWetlandSoil testPesticidePesticide residueContaminationSoil waterPollutantSoil contaminationEnvironmental engineeringAgronomyChemistrySoil scienceEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the residues and pollution sources of DDT and HCH in the Xiao Qing River sewage irrigated wetland and study the distribution of pollutants(DDT and HCH) along the vertical soil profile,soil samples were pretreated by Soxhlet extraction and silica gel purification,and the HCH and DDT content were analyzed by GC-MS.The results show that the concentrations of ΣHCHs and ΣDDTs in the soils range from ND-0.225 μg/kg and ND-1.204 μg/kg respectively,with the mean concentrations of 0.042 μg/kg and 0.204 μg/kg.The concentrations of DDTs and HCHs are below the national soil environmental quality standards(GB 15618—1995),which are at a low residue levels.The HCH residues in wetlands without irrigation are caused mainly by historical pesticide using and there is few pollutions generated recently.DDT contamination of wetlands exists mainly in the form of DDE,that is due to historical pesticide using.Sewage irrigation reduced soil residues of DDT and HCH,with average reduction rate of 67.16% and 78%.The HCH residues are higher than DDT residues at the same point.The DDT contents drop sharply along the soil profiles,and the HCH contents change irregularly along the soil profiles.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHa'erbin gongye daxue xuebaoSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207