MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770855287 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2017.1408693

Feasibility study on the use of thiosulfate to remediate mercury-contaminated soil

2017· article· en· W2770855287 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Han, Hui Wang, Feng Xie, Wéi Wang, David Dreisinger

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMercury (programming language)ThiosulfateChemistryEnvironmental chemistrySodium thiosulfateEnvironmental remediationReagentLixiviantSoil contaminationInorganic chemistryContaminationSoil waterSulfurEnvironmental scienceSulfuric acidSoil scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feasibility of using sodium thiosulfate to remediate the mercury-contaminated soil around a local chemical plant in northeastern China has been investigated. Effects of solid-to-reagent ratio and temperature on mercury extraction from soil samples with thiosulfate solutions were examined. BCR (European Community Bureau of Reference) analysis indicated that more than 90% of weak acid soluble and reducible mercury in the soil sample could be extracted by thiosulfate solution. Mercury extraction kinetics can be described by the two-step first-order reaction model in which the readily extractable fraction and the less extractable fraction of mercury were associated with their own rate constants. Mercury extraction with thiosulfate solutions could be slightly promoted when the contaminated soil was pre-oxidized with hydrogen peroxide. The results suggest that thiosulfate is a potentially effective complexing lixiviant in mercury-contaminated soil remediation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207