MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522920343 · doi:10.1190/geo2015-0647.1

Detecting and quantifying organic contaminants in sediments with nuclear magnetic resonance

2016· article· en· W2522920343 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emily Fay, Rosemary Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContaminationDiesel fuelSedimentDiffusionVolume (thermodynamics)Environmental scienceSIGNAL (programming language)GasolineSoil scienceMineralogyGeologyChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have conducted proton nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements of relaxation times T1 and T2 as well as the diffusion coefficient D to detect and quantify gasoline, diesel, crude oil, and trichloroethylene (TCE) in sediment samples containing water. The sediment samples were coarse sand, fine sand, and a sand-clay mixture. We found that water, gasoline, diesel, and crude oil all exhibited similar signal amplitudes per unit volume, whereas TCE exhibited one-tenth the signal. The ability to use T2 measurements to distinguish the contaminant signal from the water signal depended on the bulk-fluid properties as well as the sediment texture and grain size. In the T2 distributions for samples containing equal volumes of contaminant and water, the contaminant signal could be resolved for crude oil in sand and for gasoline and TCE in the sand-clay mixture. Adding the diffusion measurement, using either pulsed or static gradients, made it possible to distinguish diesel and crude oil in all of the samples due to the large differences between the D of the contaminants and water. From the diffusion measurements, we were able to accurately quantify diesel and crude oil volumes ranging from 1% to 17% of the total sample volume. These methods could be applied in the field using NMR logging tools to quantify and monitor subsurface contamination.

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 score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207