MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966757892 · doi:10.1080/10934529.2014.894790

Adsorption of naphthenic acids on high surface area activated carbons

2014· article· en· W1966757892 on OpenAlexaff
Sobhan Iranmanesh, Thomas G. Harding, Jalal Abedi, Fakhry Seyedeyn‐Azad, David B. Layzell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivated carbonSawdustAdsorptionPyrolysisBiocharPhosphoric acidOil sandsTailingsChemistryPulp and paper industryCarbon fibersNaphthenic acidCarbon dioxideMethaneCoalEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementChemical engineeringMaterials scienceAsphaltOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In oil sands mining extraction, water is an essential component; however, the processed water becomes contaminated through contact with the bitumen at high temperature, and a portion of it cannot be recycled and ends up in tailing ponds. The removal of naphthenic acids (NAs) from tailing pond water is crucial, as they are corrosive and toxic and provide a substrate for microbial activity that can give rise to methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. In this study, the conversion of sawdust into an activated carbon (AC) that could be used to remove NAs from tailings water was studied. After producing biochar from sawdust by a slow-pyrolysis process, the biochar was physically activated using carbon dioxide (CO2) over a range of temperatures or prior to producing biochar, and the sawdust was chemically activated using phosphoric acid (H3PO4). The physically activated carbon had a lower surface area per gram than the chemically activated carbon. The physically produced ACs had a lower surface area per gram than chemically produced AC. In the adsorption tests with NAs, up to 35 mg of NAs was removed from the water per gram of AC. The chemically treated ACs showed better uptake, which can be attributed to its higher surface area and increased mesopore size when compared with the physically treated AC. Both the chemically produced and physically produced AC provided better uptake than the commercially AC.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part ASame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207