Sulfolane in contaminated sites: environmental toxicity and bioremediation technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfolane is widely used around the world as an industrial solvent for purifying sour natural gas. However, because of accidental spillage and improper on-site storage/disposal procedures, reports of groundwater, aquifer, and soil contaminations have raised concerns about its potential impacts on humans and the ecosystem. As a contaminant of emerging concern, there is a lack of information on the human toxicity of sulfolane. Several bioremediation technologies have been conducted to assess the biodegradation potential of sulfolane in contaminated groundwater and soils. This review presents and discusses the available literature on the toxicity of sulfolane, which could be useful for developing proper sulfolane guidelines in different media. The oral LD 50 of sulfolane varies from 0.6 to 3.5 g·(kg body mass) –1 for different mammalian species, including guinea pig, mouse, rabbit, and rat. In addition, we also review the various sulfolane bioremediation studies to date, highlighting the efficacy of aerobic versus anaerobic bioremediation of sulfolane at contaminated sites. The zero-order biodegradation rate of sulfolane varies from 0.033 to 190 mg·L –1 ·day –1 depending on the initial concentration of sulfolane, nutrients, oxygen levels, temperature, and other parameters. Effective aerobic treatment technologies can lead to the complete mineralization of sulfolane with sulfuric acid as its major end by-product. Furthermore, the application of aerobic granulation as a promising biotechnology for sulfolane biodegradation is also discussed. This review further discusses the significance of utilizing sulfolane-degrading bacteria to reduce treatment times and presents information for future researchers and scientists on the specific isolates recorded.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".