Décontamination à l'échelle pilote de sols pollués en métaux toxiques par des procédés miniers et lixiviation chimique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot plant study permitted to demonstrate the scale up of a process using screening, spiral, hydrocyclone, and chemical leaching to decontaminate a soil. Thirty tons of a soil were treated. Screening allowed to separate a clean coarse fraction (>2 mm) of sand and gravel representing 70.9% of the total mass of soil. The <2 mm fraction of untreated soil contained 2200 mg Pb/kg, 350 mg Cu/kg, and 956 mg Zn/kg. The spiral treatment removed 10.2% Pb, 22.7% Cu, and 4.3% Zn, but it produced a small proportion of concentrate (0.53% of the whole soil). The spiral was more effective for Cu removal, because the 1–2 mm fraction of the soil contained more Cu than the smaller size fractions. The spirals are not usually efficient for the <75 µm fraction. This process was then not efficient for Pb removal, this metal being particularly concentrated in the <20 µm fraction. The <20 µm fraction, representing 6.48% of the total mass of soil and containing 5150 mg Pb/kg, was removed using a hydrocyclone. The chemical leaching process was used to treat 20.4% of the whole soil. This method has allowed to decrease the Pb concentration by approximately 57%, thus reducing the Pb content below the C criteria (1000 mg/kg) for commercial or industrial use in the province of Quebec. Overall, the process produced 91.1% of a noncontaminated soil and 8.9% of metallic residue and heavily contaminated soil. Key words: metals, soil, treatment, leaching, decontamination, mineral processing technology.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".