MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214482942 · doi:10.1016/j.geogeo.2022.100043

Uranium in groundwater in parts of India and world: A comprehensive review of sources, impact to the environment and human health, analytical techniques, and mitigation technologies

2022· review· en· W4214482942 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosystems and Geoenvironment · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Atomic Energy, Government of India
KeywordsUraniumGroundwaterAquiferEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental scienceInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryEnvironmental chemistryRainwater harvestingContaminationGeologyChemistryMass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uranium concentration/contamination in groundwater is currently a subject of concern all over the world due to related severe health problems to humans, as groundwater is the main drinking water source in rural and urban India and also in several parts of the world. Uranium concentration in groundwater in shallow aquifers in various states such as Punjab, Rajasthan, Karnataka Telangana, and Madhya Pradesh of India varies from 0 to 1443 ng/ml exceeding the permissible levels by WHO for drinking water (30 ng/ml), at several places. Very high concentrations ranging up to 1400 ng/ml were reported in some areas in other countries such as Canada, the USA, Mongolia, Burundi, Zambia, Nigeria, South Korea, Pakistan, Jordon, Afghanistan, China, and Myanmar. Various natural aspects which influence the uranium concentration in groundwater such as bedrock geology, water chemistry, and redox conditions, and anthropogenic sources such as mining activities (uranium, coal, and phosphate rock), nuclear activities, agricultural practices of using phosphate fertilizers, and prevalence of excessive nitrate in some areas, are described with examples. Some of the important analytical techniques for the precise and accurate determination of elemental and isotopic concentrations of uranium in water samples, such as LED fluorimetry, Raman spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), high-resolution ICP-MS (HR-ICP-MS), and multi-collector ICP-MS (MC-ICP-MS), are described. A number of advancements have taken place in remediation technologies for the removal of uranium in drinking water using different physical, chemical, and biological methods including rainwater harvesting. Various mitigation strategies for the effective removal of uranium from water during treatment, such as bioremediation using biochars from different sources, nanoparticle technology, and adsorption by magnesium (Mg)-iron (Fe)-based hydrotalcite-like compounds (MF-HT), are described in detail.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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