MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1854263744 · doi:10.7202/018776ar

Review on the Removal of Metal Ions from Effluents Using Seaweeds, Alginate Derivatives and Other Sorbents

2008· article· en· W1854263744 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-François Fiset, Jean‐François Blais, P.A. Riveros

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l eau · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorbentEffluentBiomass (ecology)BiosorptionAlgaePulp and paper industrySewage treatmentChemistryMetal ions in aqueous solutionSewageEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementWastewaterEnvironmental scienceCyanobacteriaAdsorptionMetalEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistryBacteriaBotanyBiologyEcologyEngineeringSorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biosorbents, especially those derived from seaweed (macroscopic algae) and alginate derivatives, exhibit high affinity for many metal ions. Because biosorbents are widely abundant (usually biodegradable) and less expensive than industrial synthetic adsorbents, they hold great potential for the removal of toxic metals from industrial effluents. Various studies have demonstrated the efficiency of living and non-living micro-organisms, such as bacteria, yeasts, moulds, micro-algae, cyanobacteria and biomass from water treatment sewage to remove metals from solution. Several types of organic and inorganic biomass have also been used as sorbent materials. In addition, by-products from the forestry industry, as well as agriculture waste and natural sorbents, have also been studied. This paper reviews and summarizes some key recent developments in these areas and it describes and discusses some specific applications of selected natural sorbents.

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 score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l eauSame topicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalFrench-language works237,207