The Adsorption of Rhodamine B in Water by Modified Zeolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, modified zeolites were prepared through the modification of raw zeolites, using hydrochloric acid (HCl) and cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB), whose properties were then characterized by a Zeta Potential Meter and an X-ray diffractometer. Also, the adsorption mechanisms were investigated in depth. The experimental results indicated that, in terms of the adsorption capacity of Rhodamine B in water, the modified zeolites were more favorable than the raw zeolites. As the dosage of adsorbent increased, the removal percentage of Rhodamine B in the water increased, while the unit adsorption capacity decreased. The pH value of the solution, and reaction temperature imposed little effects on the adsorption of the Rhodamine B. In accordance with the adsorption thermodynamic results, Langmuir and Freundlich isothermal adsorption models were able to accurately describe the adsorption of Rhodamine B in water by the modified zeolites. The fitting results had a higher correlation when using a Freundlich isothermal model. At 303 K, the static saturated adsorption capacity was 4.41 mg/g. The kinetic results demonstrated that the adsorption of Rhodamine B in water using modified zeolites fit well with the pseudo-second-order kinetic model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".