Determination of Free Copper Oxide in Mixed Copper Ores by Electrogravimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method suitable for determination of free copper oxide in mixed copper ores was established.The sample was leached in the sulfuric acid solution(10%)containing(6g/L)sodium sulfite for two hours,and copper oxide was selectively dissolved.The leaching solution was filtered and the filtrate was boiled and diluted with deionized water for electrodeposition.Copper in solution was electrically deposited to the platinum cathode.The content of the residual copper in spent electrolyte was determined by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry.The copper deposited on the cathode was dissolved by nitric acid(1+1),and the content of the impurity elements which were deposited to the cathode together with the copper during the electroplate process are determined by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry.The acid-soluble copper content in copper oxide was calculated by subtracting the content of the impurity elements on the platinum cathode from the sum of the weight difference for the platinum cathode before and after cathodic electrodeposition and the residual copper in the spent electrolyte.Compared with GB copper iodometry method,in which a titration end is determined by observation of the color change of the titration solution using naked eyes,this method has less human errors.In addition,the results measured by electrogravimetry are more stable and accurate.The results for testing Canadian Certified Reference Materials AMIS 0050(n=12)indicate that this method is accurate and reliable.The fifteen batches of oxide copper ores were selected and tested and the results were satisfactory compared with the classical copper iodometric method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".