Effect of aeration, iron and arsenic concentrations, and groundwater matrix on arsenic removal using laboratory sand filtration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural groundwater from the towns of Wabana and Freshwater and treated well water from the town of Wabana in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada were tested separately and together in sand columns to study the removal of arsenic. The most ideal conditions for arsenic removal appeared to include an arsenic concentration of approximately 35 µg/L and lower, an Fe:As mass ratio in the order of 65 and lower, and aeration of the sand media. Active aeration by pumping air though the filter, passive aeration by scraping off top layers of sand and virtual aeration by diluting the strength of the water being treated, were employed and compared. For tests where groundwater from the towns of Wabana and Freshwater was combined, arsenic removal was optimized and other elements, in addition to iron, were also correlated with effluent arsenic. Further, for these same tests there was a gradual increase in effluent pH that could have been due to oxygen depletion or gradually more reducing conditions in the sand column. Where Ni, Mn and Zn were correlated with effluent arsenic it was concluded that the increase in pH increased heavy metal removal and arsenic release. In the test where the treated Wabana water made up a greater proportion of the mix than the Wabana groundwater, lithium was also correlated with arsenic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".