MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075681828 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20590

Reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) and removal of total chromium from wastewater using scrap iron in the form of zerovalent iron(ZVI): Batch and column studies

2011· article· en· W2075681828 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Priya Prasad, Chandan Das, Animes Kumar Golder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZerovalent ironChromiumChemistryPassivationScrapHexavalent chromiumIron oxideWastewaterOxideInorganic chemistryMetallurgyNuclear chemistryLayer (electronics)AdsorptionMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work experimentally investigates Cr(VI) reduction to Cr(III) using waste scrap iron in the form of zerovalent iron (ZVI) collected from the mechanical workshop of the Institute, both in batch and continuous operation. The reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) was found to be complete (∼100%) depending on the experimental conditions. Lower pH values favour Cr(VI) reduction. Two concurrent reactions take place, that is reduction of Cr(VI) by Fe 0 (ZVI) and by Fe 2+ generated due to H + corrosion of iron. Maximum around 22%, 11% and 2% Cr(III) remained dissolved in solution while the experiments were carried out at initial pH of 2, 4.67 and 7. Higher ZVI loading increases Cr(VI) reduction rate, however, consumption of iron is noted to be higher. The results indicate that the bed is exhausted rapidly at higher pH, initial Cr(VI) concentration and flow rate. This is attributable to predominance passivation of ZVI surface forming Cr(III)–Fe(III)‐oxide layer. SEM analysis of ZVI before and after the experiments confirms formation of passive oxide on iron surface is responsible for deterioration of Cr(VI) reduction efficiency due to its blanketing effect.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsFrench-language works237,207