MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901593715 · doi:10.1039/c8em00359a

Accuracy of methods for reporting inorganic element concentrations and radioactivity in oil and gas wastewaters from the Appalachian Basin, U.S. based on an inter-laboratory comparison

2018· article· en· W2901593715 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science Processes & Impacts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMaxxam (Canada)Canadian Celiac AssociationAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceStructural basinFossil fuelEnvironmental chemistryPetroleum engineeringGeologyWaste managementChemistryEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and precise analyses of oil and gas (O&G) wastewaters and solids (e.g., sediments and sludge) are important for the regulatory monitoring of O&G development and tracing potential O&G contamination in the environment. In this study, 15 laboratories participated in an inter-laboratory comparison on the chemical characterization of three O&G wastewaters from the Appalachian Basin and four solids impacted by O&G development, with the goal of evaluating the quality of data and the accuracy of measurements for various analytes of concern. Using a variety of different methods, analytes in the wastewaters with high concentrations (i.e., >5 mg L-1) were easily detectable with relatively high accuracy, often within ±10% of the most probable value (MPV). In contrast, often less than 7 of the 15 labs were able to report detectable trace metal(loid) concentrations (i.e., Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, and Pb) with accuracies of approximately ±40%. Despite most labs using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) with low instrument detection capabilities for trace metal analyses, large dilution factors during sample preparation and low trace metal concentrations in the wastewaters limited the number of quantifiable determinations and likely influenced analytical accuracy. In contrast, all the labs measuring Ra in the wastewaters were able to report detectable concentrations using a variety of methods including gamma spectroscopy and wet chemical approaches following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard methods. However, the reported radium activities were often greater than ±30% different to the MPV possibly due to calibration inconsistencies among labs, radon leakage, or failing to correct for self-attenuation. Reported radium activities in solid materials had less variability (±20% from MPV) but accuracy could likely be improved by using certified radium standards and accounting for self-attenuation that results from matrix interferences or a density difference between the calibration standard and the unknown sample. This inter-laboratory comparison illustrates that numerous methods can be used to measure major cation, minor cation, and anion concentrations in O&G wastewaters with relatively high accuracy while trace metal(loid) and radioactivity analyses in liquids may often be over ±20% different from the MPV.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · 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