MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991079801 · doi:10.1139/s04-055

Electrochemical reactivation of granular activated carbon: pH dependence

2005· article· en· W1991079801 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Ayoub Karimi-Jashni, Roberto Narbaitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrochemical sensors and biosensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrochemistryDesorptionElectrolytePhenolChemistryAnodeCathodeActivated carbonAdsorptionCathodic protectionElectrodeInorganic chemistryCarbon fibersMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this paper were to verify and to quantify the dependence of granular activated carbon (GAC) electrochemical reactivation efficiency on the extreme pH values that occur at the electrodes. Phenol-loaded GAC was reactivated using a bench-scale electrochemical reactor. The pH values in the cathode and anode compartments during reactivation were 12 and 2, respectively. The pH of the electrolyte controlled the reactivation efficiency, and cathodic reactivation efficiencies were about 30% higher at pH 12 than at pH 2. Cathodic reactivation was about 20% more efficient than the anodic reactivation. The cathode, the reducing electrode, generates OH – ions, which increase the local pH at the cathode. Reduced phenol adsorbability at high pH promotes desorption from previously loaded GAC, thus increasing the reactivation efficiency. Greater phenol desorption was observed at pH 12 when the GAC was subjected to a 50-mA current than in the absence of a current. Thus, electrochemical reactivation is more efficient than chemical reactivation. Key words: granular activated carbon, pH, electrochemical, regeneration, reactivation, adsorption, desorption, phenol, F-400.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsFrench-language works237,207