Adsorption of an organochlorine pesticide using activated carbon produced from an agro‐waste material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Activated carbon was prepared from wheat straw generated by intensive agricultural activities in the Yaqui Valley (northwest of Mexico), and was used as adsorbing material for heptachlor removal from aqueous solution. Adsorption experiments were carried out in batch mode in order to evaluate the effects of pH, activated carbon concentration and heptachlor concentration on the adsorption process. RESULTS The adsorption of heptachlor reached efficiencies higher than 97% under neutral and acidic conditions. Increasing the activated carbon concentration from 1 g L−1 to 2 g L−1 promoted an increase in adsorption efficiency of heptachlor from 92% to 97%. The Langmuir isotherm for heptachlor removal resulted in adsorption rate constant KL = 20.8 L g−1 and maximum adsorption capacity qm = 2.22 mg g−1. The pseudo‐second‐order model describes the heptachlor adsorption kinetic, giving a value of 0.3135 g mg−1 min−1. CONCLUSION Wheat straw was used to produce activated carbon for the removal of heptachlor. The use and application of wheat straw for this purpose could be one of the responses to eradicate the problems associated with its incineration. The activated carbon produced showed good adsorption capacity for heptachlor. © 2013 Society of Chemical 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".