MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952945195 · doi:10.1002/rem.21602

The in situ treatment of synthetic musk fragrances in groundwater

2019· article· en· W2952945195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rick McGregor, Grant R. Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueRemediation Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLOEWE Zentrum AdRIA
KeywordsEnvironmental chemistryWastewaterChemistryGroundwaterSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Synthetic musk fragrances (SMFs) have been shown to be micropollutants in various aquatic and groundwater systems, often occurring at microgram per liter concentrations. Studies have shown that the most commonly detected SMFs in water are nitro musks and polycyclic musks. The SMFs are typically introduced into the environment in continuous streams such as from wastewater and land application of wastewater or sludge generated during wastewater treatment. Various studies for the treatment of SMFs have been undertaken for wastewater but studies for the treatment of SMFs in groundwater are limited, especially for in situ treatment. A pilot‐scale test was conducted to determine if the use of colloidal activated carbon (CAC) could effectively reduce dissolved concentrations of nitro and polycyclic synthetic musk compounds including musk xylene, musk ketone, galaxolide, and tonalide. The pilot test was carried out downgradient of a septic system in Central Canada where a series of nitrification and denitrification reactions are occurring in an unconfined aquifer. A 10‐weight percent CAC solution was injected into a series of temporary direct push injection points to target the synthetic musk plume. The plume contained galaxolide and tonalide concentrations up to 687 and 187 nanograms per liter (ng/L), respectively, while the concentrations of musk ketone and musk xylene were below the method detection limit (20 ng/L). A total of 13,950 liters of CAC solution was injected during one injection event. The pilot test results indicated that the CAC was effectively delivered to the target injection zone resulting in an increase in total organic carbon concentrations within the saturated soil greater than two orders of magnitude compared to the background concentrations. Analyses of the groundwater chemistry before and post‐injection indicated that the CAC had no detrimental impact on the groundwater quality while reducing the concentration of dissolved galaxolide and tonalide within the plume to below the method detection limits within 51 days of injection with the exception of two of the 14 wells monitored which had galaxolide and tonalide concentrations up to 78 and 35 ng/L. Within 6 months of application, the concentrations of galaxolide and tonalide had decreased to below the method detection limits. Subsequent monitoring of the groundwater quality over a one‐year period failed to detect galaxolide and tonalide, suggesting that the CAC was effective in attenuating the galaxolide and tonalide.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemediation JournalSame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207