MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177721633 · doi:10.3390/min5040526

Ferric Sulfate Leaching of Pyrrhotite Tailings between 30 to 55 °C

2015· article· en· W2177721633 on OpenAlexafffund
Nazanin Samadifard, Cheryl E. Devine, Elizabeth A. Edwards, Krishna Mahadevan, Vladimiros G. Papangelakis

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTailingsPyrrhotiteLeaching (pedology)SulfateFERRIC IRONFerricGeologyGeochemistryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryMetallurgyChemistryPyriteFerrousMaterials scienceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mine tailings present major environmental issues in the mining industry. However due to the depletion of high-grade sulfide ores for metal recovery, tailings could also be a potential resource for certain valuable metals. The present study investigates the potential to recover nickel from pyrrhotite tailings. Leaching tests were performed in acidic ferric sulfate media with 0.14 wt % solids to keep the ferric concentration essentially constant. The temperature was varied between 30 and 55 °C, and the ferric concentration was in a range 0.02–0.3 M. The results showed that both temperature and ferric sulfate concentration had significant effects on the nickel extraction kinetics. The shrinking core model (SCM) was applied to the nickel extraction data. The rate controlling step was found to be product layer diffusion. The Arrhenius plot yielded an activation energy of Ea = 62.12 kJ/mol based on apparent reaction rates obtained by the SCM. The reaction order with respect to ferric ion was found to be 1 at the high concentration range. SEM images of partially leached tailings confirmed the presence of elemental sulfur around the pyrrhotite particles, which was responsible for the observed non-linear leaching kinetics (diffusion control).

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207