MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405942889 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2024.2443600

Metal uptake in wetland plants from oil sands process-affected waters: a case study

2024· article· en· W4405942889 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander M. Cancelli, Asfaw Bekele, Andrea K. Borkenhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersImperial Oil Resources
KeywordsOil sandsWetlandEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEngineeringEcologyGeographyAsphaltBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment wetlands have emerged as a potential remediation option for oil-sands process affected waters (OSPW) which contains a suite of organic and inorganic constituents of potential concern. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of metals in a treatment wetland exposed to OSPW. Data was collected over three operational seasons testing freshwater and OSPW inputs at the Kearl Treatment Wetland in northern Alberta. Overall, results show that OSPW from the Kearl oil sands mine has relatively low concentrations of metals and trace elements compared to other industrial OSPW. Of the inorganic constituents introduced into the wetland from OSPW, six analytes (As, Ba, Cu, Mo, Ni, and U) were found to depurate by wetland treatment, were distributed among wetland media (water, sediment, plants), and translocated into water sedge and cattail tissue. Depuration of these analytes from the OSPW occurred mainly through sorption to sediment, while Mo and Cu had higher uptake and storage within plant tissue compared to the other analytes. No significant differences in metal uptake were observed between cattails and water sedge; root concentrations were higher than leaf concentrations. Root and leaf concentration factors were similar across years indicating that mechanisms of plant uptake were not impacted by exposure to OSPW and that bioconcentration was mainly a function of exposure. These findings support continued investigation into the application of treatment wetlands for OSPW remediation and underscore the need for further studies to optimize these systems for diverse OSPW types.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207