Effect of clays and calcium ions on bitumen extraction from athabasca oil sands using flotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel approach, based on the doping of rich estuarine oil sands with calcium and/or clays, was developed to study bitumen extraction. The batch flotation tests showed that the addition of either calcium ions up to 40 p.p.m., or kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite clays at 1 wt% of oil sands processed had marginal effect on bitumen recovery from the estuarine ores. A sharp reduction in bitumen recovery was observed only when calcium ions greater than 30 p.p.m. and 1 wt% montmorillonite clays were added together. While bitumen recovery correlated well with changes in water/air/bitumen contact angle, no correlation was found between bitumen recovery and measured zeta potential of clays or surface tension of the supernatants from the flotation slurry. The wettability of bitumen was identified as a key element in determining bitumen recovery. The aqueous solution analysis for calcium ions showed that most of the added calcium ions disappeared from the solution when montmorillonite clays were present. The addition of illite or kaolinite clays changed the calcium ion concentration in the slurry only marginally. Stronger adsorption of calcium ions on montmorillonite than on either kaolinite or illite is considered to be responsible for the increased bitumen wettability, and hence reduced bitumen recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".