MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165204745 · doi:10.1155/2013/698031

Nickel and Zinc Removal from Acid Mine Drainage: Roles of Sludge Surface Area and Neutralising Agents

2013· article· en· W2165204745 on OpenAlexaff
William E. Olds, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Paul Weber, Christopher G. Weisener

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mining · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersFoundation for Research, Science and Technology
KeywordsAcid mine drainageReagentNeutralizationChemistryZincSorptionNuclear chemistryNickelHydroxideSolubilityInorganic chemistryEnvironmental chemistryAdsorptionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During acid mine drainage (AMD) treatment by alkaline reagent neutralisation, Ni and Zn are partially removed via sorption to Fe and Al hydroxide precipitates. This research evaluated the effect of surface area of precipitates, formed by neutralisation of AMD using three alkalinity reagents (NaOH, Ca(OH) 2 , and CaCO 3 ), on the sorption of Ni and Zn. The BET surface area of the precipitates formed by neutralisation of AMD with NaOH (173.7 m 2 g −1 ) and Ca(OH) 2 (168.2 m 2 g −1 ) was an order of magnitude greater than that produced by CaCO 3 neutralisation (16.7 m 2 g −1 ). At pH 6.5, the residual Ni concentration was 0.32 and 0.41 mg L −1 for NaOH and Ca(OH) 2 neutralised AMD, respectively, resulting in up to 60% lower Ni concentrations than achieved by CaCO 3 neutralisation which had no effect on Ni removal. The residual Zn concentration was even more dependent on precipitate surface area for NaOH and Ca(OH) 2 neutralised AMD (0.33 and 1.02 mg L −1 ), which was up to 85% lower than the CaCO 3 neutralised AMD (2.20 mg L −1 ). These results suggest that the surface area of precipitated flocs and the selection of neutralising reagent critically affect the sorption of Ni and Zn during AMD neutralisation.

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)0.000
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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MiningSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207