Trivalent Chromium Ion Adsorption on Various Types of Wastewater Sludge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed at evaluating the adsorption of trivalent chromium present in high concentrations [about 100–170mgCr(III)L−1] in effluents on various types of wastewater sludges, namely, primary sludge (PWS), secondary sludge (SWS), mixed sludge (primary+secondary) (MWS), physicochemical treatment sludge (CWS), and agro-processing industry sludge (AWS). Adsorption tests of chromium were carried out at 25±1°C in 500mL Erlenmeyer flasks at various adsorbent concentrations (2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30gL1) for all types of sludges studied (PS, SWS, MWS, CWS, and AWS). A synthetic chromium nitrate [Cr(NO3)3⋅9H2O] solution adjusted to pHi=3.2 at 112mgL−1 was used. The results revealed that CWS had the best adsorption capacity for chromium, followed by SWS, and adsorption capacity of the different wastewater sludges was in the following order: CWS>SWS⩾MWS>PWS>AWS. Kinetic adsorption studies also showed that almost complete removal of chromium in solution was reached in the first 2h of reaction with all types of sludges. Finally, the adsorption tests of chromium on tannery effluent ([Cr]i=143mgL−1) confirmed the effectiveness of SWS for the removal of chromium. A removal yield of 40.8% of chromium was observed following 2.0h of adsorption on 5.0gL−1 of SWS at a pHi=3.94. The quantity of chromium adsorbed on sludge during these tests corresponded to a load of 11.6mgCrg−1 dry weight.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it