MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975656500 · doi:10.1081/ss-120023417

Separation of Cobalt from a Nickel-Hydrometallurgical Effluent Using an Emulsion Liquid Membrane

2003· article· en· W1975656500 on OpenAlexaff
Jianzhang Fang, Mingyu Li, Zhenghe Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueSeparation Science and Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCobaltNickelExtraction (chemistry)EmulsionHydrometallurgyCobalt extraction techniquesChlorideMembraneInorganic chemistryEffluentAqueous solutionAqueous two-phase systemChromatographyOrganic chemistrySulfuric acidWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of cobalt extraction by a tri-alkyl-amine hydrochloride (TAAHCl) was studied. Based on extraction solution chemistry, a mathematical expression was derived to identify metal transfer mechanisms. Both experimental results and theoretical consideration identified anions as the most favorable species for ion exchange with chloride anions in protonated TAAHCl. A new emulsion liquid membrane (ELM) system using TAAHCl as carriers was tested for the separation of cobalt from a nickel hydrometallurgical waste effluent. The effect of complex agent addition, carrier concentration, and acidity of the internal and external aqueous phases on cobalt extraction efficiency was investigated. Under optimum conditions, the enrichment of cobalt with a recovery rate of 99.8% was obtained by a one-stage process. The treated effluent contained mainly nickel, which is suitable for further nickel recovery, while the cobalt in the separated internal phase can be recovered as a value added by-product.

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 score0.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeparation Science and TechnologySame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207