MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055339408 · doi:10.1002/elsc.200620120

Specific Treatment Technologies for Removing Arsenic from Water

2006· article· en· W2055339408 on OpenAlexaff
Tiến Vinh Nguyễn, S. Vigneswaran, Huu Hao Ngo, D. Pokhrel, T. Viraraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering in Life Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenicMetalloidAdsorptionWater treatmentNanofiltrationChemistryEnvironmental chemistryFiltration (mathematics)ContaminationSurface waterIon exchangeEnvironmental engineeringMembraneEnvironmental scienceIonMetal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arsenic (As) is a highly toxic metalloid found in ground and surface water. Arsenic contamination in drinking water leads to harmful effects on human health. To eliminate arsenic from drinking water, several technologies such as coagulation, adsorption, ion exchange, filtration, membrane processes, etc., have been used. In this study, three technologies were evaluated for arsenic removal. Results from batch kinetic experiments showed that iron coated sand (IOCS‐2) can remove more than 90 % of As from synthetic water. Experiments were conducted with three different pH values (6, 7, and 8) and an initial As concentration of 260 μg/L. A new material, developed in this study, namely iron coated sponge (IOCSp), was found to have a high capacity in removing both As (V) and As (III). Each gram of IOCSp adsorbed about 160 μg of As within a 9‐hour contact period of IOCSp with As solution. Low pressure nanofiltration removed more than 94 % of As from an influent containing 440 μg/L As. The applied pressure was varied from 85 to 500 kPa.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering in Life SciencesSame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207