Comparison of natural adsorbents for metal removal from acidic effluent
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adsorption tests were carried out in acidic synthetic solutions (pH 2.0) using 20 g l(-1) of various natural adsorbents and 0.25 mM of 11 different metals. In decreasing order, the most efficient adsorbents tested were: oyster shells, cedar bark, vermiculite, cocoa shells and peanut shells. In contrast, weak metal adsorption was demonstrated by: red cedar wood, peat moss, pine wood, corn cobs and perlite. Metal adsorption capacities in acidic synthetic solution followed the order: Pb2+> Cr3+> Cu2+> Fe2+> Al3+> Ni2+> Cd2+ > Mn2+ > Zn2+ >> Ca2+, Mg2+. Alkaline treatment (0.75 M NaOH) increased the effectiveness of metal removal for the majority of adsorbents. In contrast, acid treatment (0.75 M H2SO4) either reduced or did not affect the adsorption capacity of the materials tested. Finally, oyster shells, red cedar wood, vermiculite, cocoa shells and peanut shells, were effective natural adsorbents for the selective recovery of lead and trivalent chromium from acidic effluent.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it