MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408431210 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-13329

Development of a selective dissolution protocol for pyrrhotite quantification in sulfide-bearing concrete aggregates

2025· preprint· en· W4408431210 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Guimarães Titon, Josée Duchesne, Benoît Fournier, A.C.P. Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrrhotiteDissolutionSulfideBearing (navigation)Protocol (science)ChemistryGeologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceMetallurgyOrganic chemistryMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete and its basic components are essential resources in modern society, with their usage steadily increasing over the years. Ensuring the production of high-quality concrete mixtures is critical to the long-term economic sustainability and infrastructure progress of any developed nation. Coarse rock aggregates make up most of the total volume in any concrete structure. Therefore, their suitability and performance must be ensured through proper evaluation and selection. One of the most significant concrete issues associated with the use of unsuitable aggregates is Internal Sulfate Attack (ISA). ISA can occur when sulfide-containing lithotypes, namely pyrrhotite, become reactive after the concrete has set. Through a series of complex chemical reactions, pyrrhotite releases sulfur compounds into the cement paste, where they react with the primary hydrated phases to form expansive by-products. These secondary expansive mineral phases cause internal swelling and cracking, leading to a significant reduction in the structural integrity of the concrete. Currently, a procedure that measures the total sulfur content (TS%) of aggregates is widely used and serves as an effective screening method to quickly identify and select aggregates with low to no sulfide content. However, this analysis only reports the TS% of the entire sample and does not account for the presence of non-reactive sulfide minerals, such as chalcopyrite, pentlandite, and most types of pyrite. The objective of this study is to improve this widely used analysis by developing a selective dissolution protocol that can attribute the TS% of an aggregate sample to its specific pyrrhotite content. This will allow the accurate quantification of sulfur associated with pyrrhotite, the most reactive sulfide mineral. The methodology includes a primary analysis to determine the initial TS% of the sample. This is followed by two selective dissolution cycles to separate the sulfide phases present. The first step uses an HCl solution designed to selectively dissolve the pyrrhotite content. In the second step, the remaining sample is dissolved in an aqua regia solution to digest the other sulfide phases. The solid residue from the first dissolution is analyzed for TS%, representing the sulfur fraction associated with the other sulfide phases in the sample that are non-reactive in the context of ISA. The difference between the TS% value of the solid residue from the first dissolution and the initial TS% corresponds to the sulfur specifically associated with pyrrhotite. The final solid residue of the second dissolution is also analyzed for TS%, which should be negligible and close to zero. Preliminary results from aggregate samples with medium to high sulfur content have shown promising findings. Samples with up to 2.7% TS% showed negligible amounts of pyrrhotite content after the first dissolution step, with very low TS%, averaging 0.3% after the second dissolution. Samples with an initial TS% of 0.6% yielded an average TS% of 0.03% after the second dissolution phase. These results indicate that the parameters established for the method (acid strength, dissolution temperature, sample amount) perform as expected for the range of sulfur values currently under evaluation in the industry.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207