MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986206400 · doi:10.2298/jsc090617118g

Extraction and separation of U(VI) and Th(IV) from hydrobromic acid media using Cyanex-923 extractant

2010· article· en· W1986206400 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Snehal Ghag

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Serbian Chemical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsHydrobromic acidChemistryExtraction (chemistry)TolueneThoriumDiluentStripping (fiber)Phosphine oxideMetal ions in aqueous solutionUraniumStoichiometrySulfuric acidInorganic chemistryNuclear chemistryMetalPhosphineChromatographyOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic study of the solvent extraction of uranium(VI) and thorium(IV) from hydrobromic acid media was performed using the neutral phosphine oxide extractant Cyanex-923 in toluene. These metal ions were found to be quantitatively extracted with Cyanex-923 in toluene in the acidity range 5x10-5-1x10-4 M and 5x10-5-5x10-3 M, respectively, and they are stripped from the organic phase with 7.0 M HClO4 and 2.0- 4.0 M HCl, respectively. The effect of the equilibrium period, diluents, diverse ions and stripping agent on the extraction of U(VI) and Th(IV) was studied. The stoichiometry of the extracted species of these metal ions was determined based on the slope analysis method. The extraction reactions proceed by solvation and their probable extracted species found in the organic phase were UO2Br2?2Cyanex-923 and ThBr4?2Cyanex-923. Based on these results, a sequential procedure for their separation from each other was developed.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Serbian Chemical SocietySame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207