MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324413251 · doi:10.3749/canmin.50.1.31

NATURE OF HEAVY METALS IN HEMIMORPHITE: A CATION-EXCHANGE AND SINGLE-CRYSTAL EPR STUDY

2012· article· en· W2324413251 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Mao, Yuanming Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAreva
KeywordsElectron paramagnetic resonanceSingle crystalCrystallographyChemistryMaterials scienceNuclear magnetic resonancePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemimorphite, a zeolite-like mineral commonly present in supergene non-sulfide Zn deposits and Zn mine tailings, is known to contain elevated levels of As, Cd, Cu and Pb. Cation-exchange experiments of a natural hemimorphite (Mapimi, Durango, Mexico) with 0.1 M CaCl 2 solution at 110 oC show that As and Cu are retained, whereas Cd and Pb are readily exchanged. The retention of As is consistent with previous single-crystal electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) results that showed its occurrence as the substitutional As 5+ ion at the Si site. Single-crystal EPR spectra of hemimorphite from the M’Fouati Pb-Zn mine (Reneville, Congo), measured at 120 K and 295 K, show a Cu 2+ center. The best-fit spin Hamiltonian parameters g , A ( 63 Cu), P ( 63 Cu) and A ( 1 H) of this center at 120 K demonstrate that Cu 2+ resides at the tetrahedral Zn site, not in the channels as suggested by a previous powder EPR study. Cadmium and Pb in hemimorphite are probably present in the channels; this would account for their contrasting behavior from As and Cu during the cation-exchange experiments. However, single-crystal EPR spectra of ten samples of hemimorphite from various Pb-Zn deposits, including those taken after gamma-ray irradiation for doses up to 55 kGy, did not detect any paramagnetic Cd or Pb centers.

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 score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207