MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromium(III) Isolation from Acid Extract of Tannery Sludge

2001· article· en· W2028390275 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChromium effects and bioremediation
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National d'Optique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateChromiumChemistryNuclear chemistryHydroxideMetalDilutionPrecipitationMolar ratioEnvironmental chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High concentrations of Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, and Zn in the tanning agent are detrimental to the properties of tanned leather. To facilitate removal of chromium from the tannery sludge and recycle to the tanning agent, these five metals must first be removed as much as possible from the acid extract of tannery sludge. This work proposes a three-step process for the separation of Cr(III) from these interfering element metals present in the acid extract (leachate) of tannery sludge. In step 1, the leachate was appropriately diluted, and the Al was efficiently removed by precipitation in the form of hydroxide at 21°C and adjusting the pH between 4.6 and 4.8. The optimum dilution ratio for the tannery sludge leachate at a solids concentration 80 (g/L) was 6.3. Under the above operating conditions, 50–80% of Al, 30–40% of Fe, and 22–40% of Cr were removed, and the discrimination ratio between Al and Cr was between 2.0 and 2.2, depending on the pH. In step 2, the Al and Fe that remained in the filtrate after step 1 were further reduced at 21°C by reacting with an organic agent cupferron (Y). The precipitation reactions of cupferron with all of metals were completed in 10 min. The optimum pH for the removal of Al, Fe, and Zn was between 3 and 4.83. The optimum molar ratio of cupferron to the sum of Al, Fe, and Zn was between 2.78 and 4. Under these operating conditions, about 90% of Fe, 80% of Al, 70% of Zn, and 7% of Cr were precipitated. During step 2, most of Fe, Al, and Zn originally present in the tannery leachate were separated from Cr(III), Ca, and Mg. In step 3, the Ca and Mg left in the filtrate after step 2 were separated from Cr(III) by adjusting the pH of the filtrate to 7.0 with the solution of sodium hydroxide at 21°C. The removal efficiency of Cr(III), Ca, and Mg were 99.6, 13.7, and 4.9%. After step 3, the molar percentages of Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, and Zn in the precipitate formed at pH 7.0 and 21°C in a typical case were 2.94, 0.055, 95.649, 0.302, 1.013, and 0.041, respectively. The overall removal efficiencies of the targeted metals in a typical case were as follows: Al, 77%; Fe, 84.4%; Ca, 99.2%; Mg, 98.5%; and Zn, 61%. About 42% of Cr(III) in total (step 1 + step 2) was removed as precipitates with other metals. The hydroxide precipitates of Cr(III) (from step 1) can be recovered efficiently by the conventional oxidation method. The spent cupferrons as cupferrates can be recovered and recycled. The separation process was simple since it does not involve the oxidation of Cr(III) and the use of ionic exchange resin.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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