MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327950892 · doi:10.3390/f14030625

Fungal Resistance and Leaching Behavior of Wood Treated with Creosote Diluted with a Mixture of Biodiesel and Diesel

2023· article· en· W4327950892 on OpenAlexaff
K. C. Walker, Himadri Rajput, Alexander Murray, Glenn W. Stratton, Gordon Murray, Quan He

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreosoteBiodieselPreservativePulp and paper industryDiluentDiesel fuelLeaching (pedology)Waste managementEnvironmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental chemistryFood scienceSoil waterOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effect of biodiesel as a co-solvent with the wood preservative creosote to reduce the amount of hydrocarbon-based carrier utilized. Small blocks of wood were treated at a pilot scale using three different creosote concentrations. The diluent used was a blend of 80% soybean biodiesel and 20% petroleum diesel. The efficacy of creosote was tested against brown rot and white rot fungi. The results of the wood-block test and agar test suggested that there was no significant effect of biodiesel on the efficacy of creosote as a wood preservative. As creosote-treated wood is commonly used for railway ties, its potential impact on the surrounding environment was also assessed by studying the leaching behavior of creosote–biodiesel–diesel blend treated railway ties. Rainfall simulators were used to imitate an exposure of treated wood to a significant amount of rainfall. Wood core drilled from the exposed railway ties and leaching water samples were analyzed for the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). Overall, this study demonstrated that the diluent containing biodiesel had no negative effect on the performance of creosote as a wood preservative and towards the natural environment.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207