MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Treatment of oil sands process affected waters by constructed wetlands: Evaluation of designs and plant types

2021· article· en· W3128131725 on OpenAlexafffund
Monique C. Simair, Joanne L. Parrott, Mignon le Roux, Varun Gupta, Richard Frank, Kerry M. Peru, Chukwuemeka Ajaero, Dena W. McMartin, John V. Headley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsBiodegradationOil sandsAerationEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryEnvironmental chemistryChemistryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructed wetland treatment systems (CWTS)s can be used to treat various wastewaters. The main constituent in oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) with uncertain treatment by CWTS are naphthenic acid fraction compounds (NAFC)s. The NAFCs are also among the primary contributors of toxicity to aquatic organisms. While there is preliminary evidence that some CWTSs are capable of treating OSPW for future potential discharge, there is little information comparing the effectiveness and efficiencies of different CWTS designs. Obtaining large volumes of OSPW for testing can be difficult, and while it is known that synthetic NAFCs are simpler and have different toxicity than OSPW-NAFCs, it is unknown whether they could serve as a proxy for optimization of CWTS design and operation. This study presents a comprehensive comparison of CWTS performance operated with both synthetic OSPW and OSPW for four CWTS designs differing in plant type, aeration, flow path, water depth, and substrate type. This study evaluated the potential biodegradation of NAFCs including: (1) decrease in total NAFC concentration, (2) shifts in Ox-NAFC fractions from O2- to O3-, O4-, and O5-NAFC, (3) decrease in carbon number, (4) decrease of the double bond equivalencies (DBE), and (5) change in toxicity of the waters to test organisms. CWTS planted with Sedge achieved the greatest extent of NAFC treatment and detoxification regardless of design. Although CWTSs planted with Cattail and Bulrush also degraded NAFCs and decreased toxicity, a greater hydraulic retention time was required, and the total extent of treatment was less than the CWTSs planted with Sedge. While synthetic OSPW was more toxic and experienced faster degradation rates, it showed similar trends to OSPW in terms of CWTS design efficiencies and function. Although synthetic OSPW would not be appropriate for modelling or scaling of CWTSs, it can be useful for testing designs and operating conditions.

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)0.001
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total Environment→Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→