MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074486734 · doi:10.1002/ep.670190415

Extraction of metals from a contaminated sandy soil using citric acid

2000· article· en· W2074486734 on OpenAlexaff
R. Bassi, Shiv O. Prasher, Benjamin K. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Progress · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitric acidLeaching (pedology)Extraction (chemistry)ChemistryMetalMetal ions in aqueous solutionContaminationEnvironmental chemistrySoil contaminationSoil waterChromatographyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Twenty‐four‐hour washing of a contaminated soil with 0.5 M citric acid reduced the levels of Cd, Cu, Zn, and Pb from 0.01, 0.04, 0.42, and 41.52 mg g‐1 to 0, 0.02, 0.18 and 5.21 mg g‐1, respectively. Extending the washing period beyond 24 hours did not influence the results significantly. Metal ions present in higher amounts were removed more easily. A column study was also conducted to compare metal leaching with surface and subsurface application of 0.3 M citric acid to 60 cm long soil columns packed with metal‐contaminated soil. Results indicated that the uniform distribution of citric acid, applied through the subirrigation system, resulted in a more efficient extraction of metal ions. The extraction of Zn and Pb from the columns with subsurface application of citric acid was, respectively, 38 and 27 times higher than from the columns with surface application of citric acid. After washing the contaminated soil with various citric acid concentrations, the metal‐rich wash solution was treated effectively using chitosan flakes.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations105
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ProgressSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207