Effects of pressure on the biogeochemical and geotechnical behavior of treated oil sands tailings in a pit lake scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reclamation options for oil sands fluid fine tailings (FFT) are limited due to its challenging geotechnical properties , which include high water and clay contents and low shear strength. A feasible reclamation option for tailings with these properties is water capped FFT deposits (pit lakes). A relatively new proposal is to deposit FFT that has been treated with alum and polyacrylamide in pit lakes. Though over 65 Mm 3 of alum/polyacrylamide treated FFT has been deposited to date, there is limited publicly available information on the biogeochemical and geotechnical behavior of this treated FFT. Further, the effects of pressure from overlying tailings on microbial activity and biogeochemical cycling in oil sands tailings has not been previously investigated. Twelve 5.5 L columns were designed to mimic alum/polyacrylamide treated FFT deposited beneath a water cap. A 2x2 factorial design was used to apply pressure and hydrocarbon amendments to the tailings. Pressure (0.3–5.1 kPa) was applied incrementally and columns were monitored for 360 d. Pressure significantly enhanced consolidation and microbial activity in treated FFT. Columns with pressure generated significantly more CH 4(g) and CO 2(g) and had significant increases in dissolved organic carbon and chemical oxygen demand in the FFT and water caps. The enhanced microbial activity in columns with pressure indicates that pressure increased the solubility of microbial substrates and metabolites in the tailings, thereby increasing the bioavailability of these compounds. Ammonium generation was significantly higher in columns with pressure, suggesting that microorganisms utilized polyacrylamide and/or N 2 fixation as a nitrogen source to meet enhanced nutrient demands. Pressure also impacted microbial community structure, shifting methanogenic communities from hydrogenotrophic methanogens to predominately acetoclastic methanogens . This study also revealed the importance of sulfur cycling in treated FFT. Extensive sulfate reduction occurred in all columns, generating dissolved sulfides and H 2 S (g) , and this was accelerated by hydrocarbon amendments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".