Laboratory Evaluation of the Efficacy of Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2) Composite Powder for Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of efficacy of ClO 2 composite powder as a chemical oxidant for remediating petroleum hydrocarbon in soils has been explored.The main purpose of this study is to investigate the oxidative degradation capacity of ClO 2 and the resulting effects on soil chemistry.The most economical dosage was a ratio of 1g product:27g of contaminated soil.Destruction efficiency in the samples ranged from 7 to 41%.Decrease in soil samples pH ranged from 0.08 to 0.80 and 0.04 to 1.01, respectively.Increasing trend in hydrocarbon degradation was 1 2 3 4 F F F F ≈ ≈ >. The degradation mechanism of the hydrocarbon constituents was postulated to occur in two stages.The first fast-reaction stage involves ClO 2 (aq) in initial electron transfer and in the second-stage, the generation of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and itself partially dissociates, forming hypochlorite anion, ClO -, which would recurrently react with the soil contaminants.SAR values remained unchanged relative unchanged.SO 4 -2 level increases in all samples due to oxidative transformations of sulfur containing compounds by ClO 2 .Soil EC rises as ClO 2 dosage increased and was attributed to higher levels of Cl -and SO 4 -2 .As a direct benefit, SO 4 -2 provides a source of nutrient fertilizer in the soil for plants.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".