MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308898970 · doi:10.2166/wst.2004.0186

Spectroscopic evidence of silica-lignin complexes: implications for treatment of non-wood pulp wastewater

2004· article· en· W2308898970 on OpenAlexaff
M.H. Nour, Edward H. Smith, John V. Walther

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsLigninBlack liquorSolubilityChemistryPulp (tooth)Organic chemistryAqueous solutionChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the hypothesis that lignin compounds form aqueous complexes with silica increasing its solubility, thereby inhibiting its precipitation. An experimental program using four lignin model compounds was conducted to test the hypothesis. Laser Raman spectroscopy (LRS) was used to characterize, qualitatively, the interaction between lignin and aqueous silica, and to identify the possibility of silica-lignin complexation. Solubility studies were then performed by analyzing the solubility of silica in presence and absence of lignin within the relevant pH range to confirm the results of LRS, and to obtain a quantitative assessment of the relative solubility. The findings have established the formation of silica-ferulic, silica-vanillic, and silica-4-methoxycinnamic acid complexes, but no evidence was detected for the formation of silica-veratryl alcohol complex. In fact, the black liquor undoubtedly contains much more complex lignin materials than the simple model compounds used in this work. The more complex lignin compounds are likely to have an even greater tendency to form silica complexes, thus contributing to the initial hypothesis. This finding provides a fundamental understanding as to why previous efforts to precipitate silica by lowering the pH from 10-11 (for black liquor) to less than 9 did not achieve satisfactory silica separation, and why alternative strategies need to be investigated.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207