MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W70334374

Evaluating the Release of Arsenic from Drinking Water Absorbents under Regulatory and Landfill Leaching Conditions Using X-ray Adsorption Fine Structure (XAFS) Spectroscopy

2010· article· en· W70334374 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mengling Stuckman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WashingtonOhio State UniversityOffice of ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsX-ray absorption fine structureArsenicLeaching (pedology)AdsorptionChemistryEnvironmental chemistrySpectroscopyMaterials scienceMetallurgyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceOrganic chemistrySoil water
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its known toxic and carcinogenic effects, the presence of arsenic in drinking water is currently regulated in the United States at a level of 10μg/L. In order to meet regulatory needs and protect public health, single-use adsorbents are utilized to remove arsenic in most water systems in the US. Consequently, when saturated with arsenic, an estimated 10,000 tons of arsenic bearing solid residuals (ABSRs) from drinking water treatment systems will be discarded into landfills every year. However, arsenic may be concentrated and released into landfill leachate. If improperly treated, released arsenic may cause secondary pollution to the discharged water bodies, some of which can be drinking water reservoirs, resulting in possible ecological or human health concerns. Most ABSRs have been shown to pass regulatory leaching tests which determine their eligibility to be disposed of into a municipal landfill. However, existing evidence suggests that regulatory leaching tests failed to simulate the actual landfill conditions potentially favorable for arsenic release, such as elevated pH, reducing conditions, presence of competitive anions and complex natural organic matter (NOM) that could dissolve the minerals comprising the adsorbent. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the mechanism of arsenic release, especially information of surface binding transformation that directly determines As leachability from the ABSRs under different leaching conditions. This research, therefore, represents one of the first studies utilizing both traditional chemical analysis and x-ray adsorption fine structure (XAFS) spectroscopy to evaluate As binding structures in ABSRs from long-term full-scale operations and associated binding strength differed from geographically diverse sources. Furthermore, this study also aims at providing direct binding transformation evidence to investigate leaching conditions favorable for As release. Our results show that the coexistence of weaker As binding structures is usually an indicator of less effective adsorption during drinking water treatment confounded by source water or treatment processes, such as less operation time, manganese coating and insufficient pH adjustment. Higher initial As loading would lead to larger As release in subsequent landfill disposal. Thus, drinking water facilities should consider the balance between the effective As treatment of the media and disposal cost in the future as the legislation tightens. Our results also presented no binding transformation after leaching tests at lower pH and transformation from stronger binding to weaker bindings as pH increases in the leaching condition. This could be utilized to directly support the idea that current leaching tests are not sufficient enough to simulate As release in landfill conditions with respect to elevated pH. TCLP was also shown to misrepresent the potential carbon-promoted iron dissolution or carbon competition with As on iron surface which would facilitate As release. The iron dissolution is found to be one of main contributors to As release in many recent studies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University)Same topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207