In‐Well Degassing of Monitoring Wells Completed in Gas‐Charged Aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Total dissolved gas pressure ( P TDG ) measurements are useful to measure accurate in situ dissolved gas concentrations in groundwater, but challenged by in‐well degassing. Although in‐well degassing has been widely observed, its cause(s) are not clear. We investigated the mechanism(s) by which gas‐charged groundwater in a recently pumped well becomes degassed. Vertical P TDG and dissolved gas concentration profiles were monitored in the standing water column (SWC) of a groundwater well screened in a gas‐charged aquifer for 7 days before and 15 days after pumping. Prior to pumping, P TDG values remained relatively constant and below calculated bubbling pressure ( P BUB ) at all depths. In contrast, significant increases in P TDG were observed at all depths after pumping was initiated, as fresh groundwater with elevated in situ P TDG values was pumped through the well screen. After pumping ceased, P TDG values decreased to below P BUB at all depths over the 15‐day post‐pumping period, indicating well degassing was active over this time frame. Vertical profiles of estimated dissolved gas concentrations before and after pumping provided insight into the mechanism(s) by which in‐well degassing occurred in the SWC. During both monitoring periods, downward mixing of dominant atmospheric and/or tracer gases, and upwards mixing of dominant groundwater gases were observed in the SWC. The key mechanisms responsible for in‐well degassing were (i) bubble exsolution when P TDG exceeded P BUB as gas‐charged well water moves upwards in the SWC during recovery (i.e., hydraulic gradient driven convection), (ii) microadvection caused by the upward migration of bubbles under buoyancy, and (iii) long‐term, thermally driven vertical convection.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".