Desalination of Saline Sludges Using Ion-Exchange Column with Zeolite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: A flushing process followed by a zeolite based ion-exchange process were developed for the treatment of saline sludges from oil and gas exploration sites. The particle size distribution of sludge sample indicated the presence of very fine sand and clay. The electrical conductivity of the sludge was 42.2 dS m−1 indicating very saline sludge and the Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) was 40 cmoL kg−1 which was very suitable for ion-exchange process. A 500 g sample of saline sludge (containing CaCl2:MgCl2:NaCl ratio as 1:1.16:36.61) was washed using demineralized water in a mixed reactor and the sludge was allowed to settle for 36 h. The optimal number of washes was determined to be two washes with an overall salt removal efficiency of 94.47%. The treated sludge contained 515 mg salt kg−1 sludge (or 0.05 % w w−1) and was suitable for agricultural application. The washwater was passed through a Mountain Stronach zeolite (chabazite) based ion-exchange column for salt reduction. The sodium salt removal efficiency was 75.34%. This was increased to 99.79 % when using two ion-exchange columns. The Ca and Mg ions were under regulatory limits and required no further treatment. The final salt concentration in the wash water was 314.0 mg L−1 which was below the limits established by the Canadian Guidelines. For complete removal of total salts, a series of ion-exchange columns with different zeolites (for removal of NaCl, MgCl2 and CaCl2) will be required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".