MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158895901 · doi:10.1139/s02-007

The influence of pH and temperature changes on the adsorption behavior of organophilic clays used in the stabilization/solidification of hazardous wastes

2002· article· en· W2158895901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A Uribe, Paul L. Bishop, N. Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiomin
KeywordsChlorobenzeneAdsorptionAnilineChemistryPhenolSorptionSorbentMontmorilloniteDesorptionInorganic chemistryChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of temperature, pH, and Na + /Ca 2+ concentration on the adsorptive behavior of organophilic clay used in the solidification/stabilization of hazardous wastes was addressed. The organophilic clay used was montmorillonite type clay modified by cation exchange with a mixed tallow amine as the sorbent. The contaminants used in this work were phenol, 2-chlorophenol, aniline, and chlorobenzene. 2-Butanone (also known as methyl ethyl ketone, MEK) was initially studied, but preliminary work showed that the organophilic clay poorly sorbed it and it was not studied further. A group of isothermal tests were performed to clarify specific sorption behaviors due to temperature effects, high pH, and concentration of the cations Na + and Ca 2+ . The adsorption capacity of the organophilic clay decreased as follows: chlorobenzene > 2-chlorophenol > phenol > aniline. Desorption in high pH environments was seen for phenol and 2-chlorophenol. Changes in temperature, rise in the pH, or increases in Na + /Ca 2+ concentrations had no effect on the adsorption of either aniline or chlorobenzene.Key words: organophilic clay, adsorption, hazardous wastes, solidification/stabilization, isotherm.

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 score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207