Optimisation d'un procédé de lixiviation en milieu basique et acide pour la décontamination (Cd, Pb) d'un mélange de cendres de chaudières et d'électrofiltres d'incinérateur de déchets municipaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to improve a process for the removal of Cd and Pb from municipal incinerator fly ashes (boiler and electrofilter ashes). The first part of this study was to evaluate the optimum conditions for Pb extraction using alkaline washing steps. The tests carried out with various ash solid concentrations (1050% (w/v)) have shown better Pb removal yields following the decrease of the solid concentrations. Nevertheless, by considering the economic aspect, a ratio of 30% (w/v) was retained as the optimal condition for alkaline leaching steps. A very short contact time (2 min) allows a maximum lead solubilization during alkaline washings. A series of two or three alkaline washing steps is necessary for sufficient lead removal. Once the alkaline leaching conditions have been optimized, research was applied to identify the optimum conditions of acid leaching. Best Pb and Cd removal yields of 25% and 85%, respectively, have been obtained by using two 30-min washing steps at pH 3 with a pulp density of 10% (w/v). The treated ashes respect the TCLP criteria. Finally, the adapted process of ash treatment presented in this study allows a substantial reduction of 57% of the chemical costs compared with the conventional procedure, and a significant reduction (83%) of water consumption. Key words: cadmium, lead, fly ash, alkaline leaching, acid leaching, removal, TCLP, decontamination.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".