Effects of Oil Sands Process-Affected Water on Measured Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of risks and remediation of oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) requires an understanding of possible interactions of naturally occurring surfactants with hydrophobic organic compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In this study, effects of the extractable organic fraction of OSPW (OF-OSPW) on rates of release and freely dissolved aqueous concentration of several PAHs were investigated using a passive dosing approach, in which a poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) film was loaded with PAHs of interest. The concentrations of PAHs released from PDMS into aqueous solutions were directly proportional to concentrations of OF-OSPW. PAHs reached equilibrium partitioning 1–4 h faster when the aqueous phase was OF-OSPW than when it was freshwater. Greater concentrations of PAHs were released from PDMS when OF-OSPW was reconstituted in saline water compared to when it was reconstituted in freshwater. Apparent aqueous solubilities of PAHs were greater in intact OSPW than in OF-OSPW. Measured concentrations of PAHs in various aqueous solutions of OSPW and salts correlated with log K ow of PAHs. This might be because of disruption of PAHs sorbed into PDMS. These results suggest that the bioavailability of PAHs can be greater in the presence of more polar organic compounds in OSPW.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".