MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890449142 · doi:10.1139/er-2018-0022

Transport of engineered nanoparticles in soils and aquifers

2018· article· en· W2890449142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmood Fazeli Sangani, Gary Owens, Amir Fotovat

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferEnvironmental scienceSoil waterPorous mediumEnvironmental chemistryDeposition (geology)Biochemical engineeringGroundwaterEnvironmental engineeringChemistrySoil sciencePorosityGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transport and deposition behaviour of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) in natural aquifers and soil systems is a key determinant of the fate of these materials in environmental systems. A growing number of experimental studies are being conducted worldwide to address transport and deposition of ENPs in porous media (PM). Here we comprehensively review the main mechanisms and factors affecting the mobility of the environmentally important ENPs in natural PM. A variety of different processes including those that promote mobility and result in elution from the PM and those that hinder their mobility and promote ENP retention can influence ENP’s mobility through soil and aquifer media. The most important contributing factors regarding ENP transport in PM include: the physicochemical properties of the ENP, the media, the hydrodynamics of the system, and the background solution characteristics. Results from several studies conducted on the most common and environmentally important ENPs have shown that under natural environmental conditions, different types of ENPs show different transport behaviour in soil and aquifer systems. Additionally, the importance of media matrix and mobile solution factors in governing mobility of ENPs varies from one type of ENP to another.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsFrench-language works237,207