Validation of a Process for the Elimination of Naphthenic Acids in Oil Sands Process-affected Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a comparative study consisting of 44 experiments was conducted in irradiated oil sands process-affected water (OSPW), using two strains of algae, Dunaliella tertiolecta and Spirulina platensis. The performance metrics for the study were based on the algae’s ability to degrade the naphthenic acids (NAs) present in the irradiated OSPW media and their potential to generate biomass. The factors being adjusted in the experiments were the temperature, ranging from 25 C to 32 C, and the light intensity, ranging from 1.65W/L to 3.0W/L. Results showed the viability of both the cyanobacteria Spirulina Platenis, and green alga Dunaliella tertiolecta to grow in irradiated OSPW. In the case of Dunaliella tertiolecta, dry weights of up to 0.114g dry cell weight/L were achieved, with the NA concentrations being reduced by up to 95.7%. In comparison, for Spirulina platensis reductions of only up to 72.3% were observed, however, up to 0.635g dry cell weight/L were generated. The results from this study were interpreted using statistical analysis to determine the significant factors and their impacts on algae growth and reduction of NAs. From this analysis coupled with the results of the NA reduction and biomass generated in the comparative study; Spirulina platensis was selected for a 4L large scale replicate study, under optimal growth conditions. From the study, after 32 days of growth, a dry cell weight of 10.69g/L and a 100% reduction in naphthenic acid concentrations were achieved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".