MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513424839 · doi:10.1155/2015/571213

Modeling the Sorption of Ni<sup><b>2+</b></sup> and Co<sup><b>2+</b></sup> on Saprist Peat Using the Response Surface Methodology

2015· article· en· W1513424839 on OpenAlexafffund
Emmanuel S. Asapo, Cynthia A. Coles, Leonard M. Lye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Waste Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSorptionPeatAdsorptionMetalChemistryResponse surface methodologyWastewaterAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental chemistryNuclear chemistryChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringPhysical chemistryEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed study of the sorption of Ni 2+ and Co 2+ from simulated wastewater on saprist peat is presented. The significantly decomposed peat possessed a strong sorptive capacity that was maintained over a wide range of pH. With a metal concentration range of 50 to 200 mg/L, pH range of 3 to 10, peat dose of 2 to 40 g/L, and contact time of 12 to 24 h, batch experiments were conducted based on a four-factor Box-Behnken response surface design. The percentage removals of Ni 2+ and Co 2+ were analyzed using analysis of variance. Second order response surface models were developed with the significant factors and their interactions to predict the percentage sorption of Ni 2+ and Co 2+ independently. The prediction equations were verified with additional data not used in developing the equations. The study showed that the saprist peat could be a potential industrial metal adsorbent and the percentage of uptake of Ni 2+ and Co 2+ could be accurately predicted using the second order response surface models developed. Ni 2+ uptake was greater for the two metals and reached a maximum value at just below a neutral pH and Co 2+ uptake continued to increase from pH &gt; 5, with higher uptake percentage at pH 10.

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)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Waste ManagementSame topicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalFrench-language works237,207