Methane Oxidation as Measured with Gas Push Pull Testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main issues delaying the field implementation of landfill biocovers is the lack of a proper field technique to assess the level of CH4 oxidation. Gas push pull test (GPPT) was used to assess the level of methane oxidation. GPPTs consist of the injection of a gas mixture containing a reactive gas (CH4) and a non-reactive tracer (SF6) into the soil and the extraction of the pushed gas mixture from the same location over time. To quantify in-situ rates of methane oxidation, eleven GPPTs were performed in different locations of an active landfill in Florida. Quantification of first order reaction rate is based on the comparison of breakthrough curves of the different gases in accordance with (1) well mixed reactor, complete mixture of gases, and (2) plug-flow reactor model, no mixing of the injected gases. Using the data collected, a mass balance approach was also performed to express methane reactions as a percent oxidation and the Michaelis-Menten parameters were also determined. The first order methane oxidation reaction constant varied from 1.04 to 36.90 hr-1 and 0.65 to 28.04 hr-1 when the data was reduced using well-mixed reactor and plug-flow reactor, respectively. The average first order reaction constant averaged 17.52 hr-1 for the well-mixed reactor analysis and 12.3 hr-1 for the plug-flow reactor analysis. The mass balance analysis yielded a methane percent oxidation from of 13 to 76% with an average of 47%. The Michaelis-Menton parameters, Vmax and Km, for the oxidation reaction were determined to be 4950 g.m-3soil gas.hr-1 and 5%, respectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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 it