Treatment of oil‐based drill cuttings by hydrophobic deep eutectic solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the exploitation of shale gas, there are many oil‐based drill cuttings (OBDC) produced, which are hazardous waste. In this paper, the characteristics of OBDC were analyzed and 25 hydrophobic deep eutectic solvents (DESs) were prepared as extractants for treating OBDC. The results showed that the DES formed by lauric acid and thymol had the highest extraction efficiency. The significant parameters of the extraction process were studied by using total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) as an index and the rational extraction conditions were recommended as follows: 0.8:1 mole ratio of lauric acid to thymol, 10:1 mass ratio of DES to OBDC, and 1 h extraction time at 60°C. The TPH of OBDC can be decreased from 14.75 to 0.87 wt.% at this recommended condition. The high extraction efficiency was also confirmed by energy dispersive spectrum results of treated OBDC. In addition, the lauric acid/thymol DES can be recycled and the TPH was still smaller than 1% after three cycles. This research suggests that hydrophobic DES extraction is an effective technology for TPH removal from OBDC.
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".