Isotopically Enriched Geogenic <scp> δ <sup>81</sup> Br </scp> and <scp> δ <sup>37</sup> Cl </scp> : Primary Evidence for the Ascending Brine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mass balance calculations and hydrodynamics of groundwater flow suggest that the solutes in brines of the coastal sabkha aquifer from the Emirate of Abu Dhabi are derived largely from ascending geologic brines into the sabkha from the underlying formations. Solute interpretation for the ascending brine model (ABM) was based on two independent but secondary lines of evidence (solute ratios and solute fluxes). In the current study, direct primary evidence for this ABM was provided through analyses of δ 81 Br, δ 37 Cl, and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr. Different solute histories of geologic brine and sea water provide an “isotopic fingerprint” that can uniquely distinguish between the two possible sources. Samples from the coastal sabkha aquifer of Abu Dhabi were determined to have a mean δ 81 Br of 1.17‰ that is statistically equal, at the 95% confidence level, to the mean of 1.11‰ observed in the underlying geologic brine and statistically different than sea water. Similarly, the δ 37 Cl in sabkha brine has a mean of 0.25‰ and is statistically equal to a mean of 0.21‰ in the underlying geologic brines at the 95% confidence level and statistically different from sea water. Also, dissolved strontium isotope data are consistent with the ABM and even with the complex set of processes in the sabkha, the variance in strontium isotope results is similar to the geologic brine. These observations provide primary direct evidence consistent that the major source of these solutes (and presumably others in the aquifer) is from discharging geologic brines, not from adjacent sea water.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".