The adjustable synergistic effects between acid–base coupling bifunctional ionic liquid extractants for rare earth separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of the most widely used industrial extractants for rare earth elements (REEs), that is, di(2‐ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (HDEHP) and 2‐ethyl(hexyl) phosphonic acid mono‐2‐ethylhexyl ester (HEH[EHP]) were developed into [DEHP] − type acid–base coupling bifunctionalized ionic liquids (ABC‐BILs) and [EHEHP] − type ABC‐BILs, respectively. The combinations of ABC‐BIL extractants revealed synergistic effects for REEs. Seven different combinations of ABC‐BILs and five kinds of REEs confirmed the novel synergistic extraction. Some synergy coefficients of the combined ABC‐BILs were bigger than those of mixed HDEHP and HEH[EHP] by two orders of magnitude. The first synergistic extraction produced by ionic liquid extractants in the field of solvent extraction was reported in this article. The novel synergistic extraction from combined ABC‐BILs extractants revealed highly efficient and environmentally friendly potential in both of academic research and industrial application for REEs separation. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 60: 3859–3868, 2014
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".