MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066317931 · doi:10.1081/ese-100106251

AMMONIA REMOVAL FROM COMPOSTING LEACHATE USING ZEOLITE. I. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ZEOLITE

2001· article· en· W2066317931 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chuan-hsia Liu, K.V. Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZeoliteAdsorptionAmmoniumLeachateChemistryAmmoniaInorganic chemistryParticle sizeDiffusionPotassiumParticle (ecology)Environmental chemistryCatalysisOrganic chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of ammonium concentrations, contact time, and zeolite particle sizes on the ammonium adsorption capacities of a Canadian zeolite were studied using batch experiments. Both the rates and capacities of ammonium adsorption increased with increased concentrations of ammonium in solution. Ammonium adsorption increased significantly with decreasing zeolite particle size for all tests and the adsorption capacities ranged from 14.35-17.81 mg N/g. Also, ammonia adsorption increased with contact time, and it occurred rapidly at the beginning of contact, and then gradually decreased as time progressed. Langmuir isotherm best describes the equilibrium of ammonia adsorption on zeolite. Particle diffusion was the rate-controlling mechanism for the first 4 h of contact. In spite of competition potassium ions, zeolite has shown a great potential for ammonia removal from composting leachates.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.278
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

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

Citations49
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part ASame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207