MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968952500 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2018.11.0419

Impact of Hydrofluoric Acid Treatment on Humic Acid Properties Extracted from Organic Soils and an Organic Amendment: A Technical Evaluation

2019· article· en· W2968952500 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuki Audette, D. Scott Smith, James G. Longstaffe, Weibin Chen, Fereidoun Rezanezhad, L. J. Evans, Philippe Van Cappellen

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsChemistryOrganic matterHydrofluoric acidSoil waterHumic acidAluminosilicateExtraction (chemistry)Soil organic matterEnvironmental chemistryAmendmentCompostSoil pHInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistrySoil scienceGeologyFertilizerAgronomyCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical and physical characteristics of humic acids (HA) may differ depending on their source, and the ideal extraction method should not modify the characteristics of HA. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is often used in HA extraction methods to remove inorganic substances that are often present in the sample in addition to the organic molecules of interest. Organic soils contain up to 90% of organic matter and some may think that the necessity of the HF treatment is not crucial when extracting HA from organic soils. In this study, HA were extracted from turkey litter compost (TLC), an agricultural organic soil (AOS) and a riparian soil (RS), and the impact of HF on the properties of the extracted HA was assessed. HF decreased the ash content and the concentration of inorganic components in extracted materials, especially in the HA from RS, which had higher concentrations of aluminosilicates and amorphous Si. For TLC, no significant difference in either the total charge or charge distribution was observed with HF treated samples compared to untreated samples, while the HF treatment decreased the proton binding capacity at alkaline pH (≥7) in the HA from the two soils. We assume that aluminosilicates, amorphous Si and iron oxides left in the samples interacted with protons at alkaline pH, thus increasing the proton binding capacity. Therefore, HF treatment should be included when samples containing these mineral constituents even for materials rich in organic matter. Core Ideas Hydrofluoric acid did not affect functional group distribution or C concentration in humic acids. Proton binding capacity at alkaline pH of soil humic acids decreased after hydrofluoric acid treatment. Hydrofluoric acid did not affect characteristics of humic acids extracted from turkey litter compost. Humic acids from turkey litter compost had lower proton binding capacity than those from soils.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207