MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131854030 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v1n1p31

Zinc Bioremoval from Wastewater of Rubber Glove Industry

2009· article· en· W2131854030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azizah Abu-Bakar, Rakmi Abd-Rahman, Abu Bakar Mohamad, Abdul Amir H. Kadhum, Siti Rozaimah Sheikh Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente
KeywordsEffluentZincPulp and paper industryAnaerobic digestionWastewaterHeavy metalsChemistryHydraulic retention timeNatural rubberMetal ions in aqueous solutionWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMetalEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional physicochemical processes for removing heavy metals from industrial effluents are high in chemical usage and produce large amounts of chemical sludges, which in turn needs secured disposal. Biological processes to overcome these problems have been developed for treating wastewaters containing heavy metals. The bioremoval and biorecovery of zinc ions from rubber glove mill effluent on a sequencing batch biofilm reactor (SBBR) was studied. Without adding any precipitant, the processes could achieve Zn and COD removal of 40-60% and 50-70% respectively. In order to recover the metal, the sludge was digested in an anaerobic digestion reactor. This study revealed that anaerobic digestion with longer hydraulic retention time could increase the recovery of heavy metals. This recovery prevents metal discharge to the environment and conserves resources.

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)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207