Validation and comparisons of NaOH and Na <sub>4</sub> P <sub>2</sub> O <sub>7</sub> extraction methods for the characterization of organic amendments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objectives of this study are to compare the chemical properties of organic matter (OM) in alkaline extracts of turkey litter compost, source‐separated organic compost, and biosolid pellets, and to validate the use of humic acids (HAs) for analyzing the functionality (i.e . , the ability to complex with nutrients) of OM. The humic fractions, including (HAs), fulvic acids (FAs), and alkaline nondissolved fraction (humin), were isolated either with NaOH or Na 4 P 2 O 7 (PyroP) and the chemical properties were analyzed by solid‐state 13 C NMR spectroscopy. The study showed that the proportions of each functional group of the combination of HAs, FAs, and humin were essentially identical to that of their HCl‐treated original materials, except for a lower recovery of O‐alkyl groups. Although the yield of HAs extracted with PyroP was lower than that with NaOH, their spectral characteristics were not significantly different. The functionality of the OM, assuming a correlation with the sum of the proportions of carboxyl and phenolic groups, was higher in both HAs and FAs than that in humin. Based on the proportion and functionality of the HAs in the OM, we conclude that the use of HAs extracted with either NaOH or PyroP is valid for studies of OM functionality. The study also shows that the functionality and stability of OM are highly source dependent. We predict that amendments of the more humified turkey litter compost would have higher potential to increase SOM levels and retain nutrients compared with the source‐separated organic compost and biosolid pellets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".