MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Kinetics of Leaching of Lignins and Tannins in Batch Adsorption of Cr (VI) by Emblica officinalis Leaf Powder (EOLP)

2014· article· en· W2100952130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ram Pal Singh, Fatma Zahra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Membrane and Separation Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMotilal Nehru National Institute of Technology AllahabadMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsTanninChemistryLigninLeaching (pedology)KineticsNuclear chemistryAdsorptionChromatographyOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper is aimed to assess the contents of lignin and tannin leached in the batch adsorption test filtrate and to evaluate the kinetics of leaching of lignin and tannins. For the purpose, raw Emblica officinalis leaf powder (EOLP) has been used as adsorbent for removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution in batch mode of operation. Test results indicate that EOLP imparts lignin and tannin in batch test filtrate. Both lignin and tannin contents are related to pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD), initial Cr(VI) concentration (C0) residual Cr(VI) concentration in batch test filtrate (C),amount of adsorbent (Wad) and the time of contact (t). Dimensionless parameters are developed and the lignin and tannin contents are well correlated with dimensionless parameters. From the studies conducted on rate of leaching of both soluble lignin and tannins, the kinetics of leaching of soluble lignin and tannin follow a pseudo second order type rate kinetics. Linear regression models are developed based on pseudo second order kinetics for determination of lignin and tannin contents in batch test filtrate. However, these findings need further verification in future investigations.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Membrane and Separation TechnologySame topicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalFrench-language works237,207