MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878551645 · doi:10.1139/s07-006

Decontamination of water polluted with oil through the use of tanned solid wastes

2007· article· en· W1878551645 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amal Gammoun, Soufiane Tahiri, A. Albizane, M. Azzi, Miguel de la Guárdia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCollagen: Extraction and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorptionSorbentHuman decontaminationSeawaterEffluentContaminationMotor oilEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEnvironmental remediationPulp and paper industryAdsorptionEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEnvironmental engineeringGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sorption by natural organic substrates, inorganic materials or synthetic fibers is one of the most popular methods used for the separation of oily wastes from contaminated water. In this work, the ability of chrome shavings (CS) and of buffing dusts of crust leather (BDCL) to remove motor oils and oily wastes from demineralised water and natural seawater has been studied. Tannery solid wastes are formed mainly by proteins and have a highly organized structure in the form of fibers (ΦΦ: 100 nm). These wastes have a high oil sorption capacity. Tanned solid wastes are capable of absorbing many times their weight in oil (6.5–7.6 and 12.8–14.5 g/g dry substrate, respectively, for ground CS and BDCL). The sorption capacity depends strongly of sorbent nature. The removal of oils from the water surface is a quasi-instantaneous process. After use, the saturated waste floats and can be removed in an efficient and easy manner. The results look fairly promising as to possibilities of using tanned wastes to remove oils from industrial effluents and from contaminated coastal areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicCollagen: Extraction and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207