MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975160068 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2012.733415

The removal of anionic surfactants from water in coagulation process

2012· article· en· W1975160068 on OpenAlexaff
J. Kaleta, Maria Elektorowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoagulationPulmonary surfactantChemistryPowdered activated carbon treatmentWater treatmentCationic polymerizationSulfatePolyelectrolyteChemical engineeringPulp and paper industryInorganic chemistryChromatographyActivated carbonWaste managementAdsorptionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a laboratory study on the effectiveness of the coagulation process in removing surfactants from water. The application of traditional coagulants (aluminium sulfate and iron chlorides) has not brought satisfactory results, the reduction in anionic surfactant (AS) content reached 7.6% and 10%, respectively. Adding cationic polyelectrolyte (Zetag-50) increased the removal efficiency to 24%. Coagulation using a polyelectrolyte alone proved to be more efficient, the reduction in surfactant content fluctuated at a level of about 50%. Complete surfactant removal was obtained when powdered activated carbon was added 5 minutes before the basic coagulant to the coagulation process. The efficiency of surfactant coagulation also increased after the application of powdered clinoptilolite, but to a smaller degree. Then the removal of AS was found to be improved by dosing powdered clinoptilolite simultaneously or with short delay after the addition of the basic coagulant.

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicEnvironmental Chemistry and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207