MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401728123 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2003.032

Adsorption of Cadmium from Aqueous Solutions by Edible Mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus and Lentinus edodes)

2003· article· en· W2401728123 on OpenAlexafffund
T. Mathialagan, Thiruvenkatachari Viraraghavan, D. Roy Cullimore

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAgaricus bisporusLentinusCadmiumChemistryAdsorptionAqueous solutionFreundlich equationLentinulaFood scienceNuclear chemistryMushroomOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fungal organisms can remove heavy metals from aqueous solutions. Macro fungi such as Agaricus bisporus and Lentinus edodes (shiitake), commonly called mushrooms, are edible and are grown commercially. Laboratory batch studies were conducted at room temperature (21 ± 1°C) to determine the potential of these fungal biomasses for adsorption of cadmium from aqueous solutions containing 1 mg/L cadmium. Results from batch studies showed that biomasses prepared from A. bisporus and L. edodes had good potential for removing cadmium from aqueous solutions. The maximum adsorption capacity of A. bisporus and L. edodes for uptake of cadmium from aqueous solutions was 2.08 and 0.716 mg/g, respectively. The equilibrium time for adsorption was found to be 6 and 1 h for A. bisporus and L. edodes, respectively. 68% cadmium removal was achieved with A. bisporus and 45% with L. edodes. The optimum initial pH was found to be 6.0 and 5.0 for A. bisporus and L. edodes, respectively. Isotherm studies suggested that cadmium adsorption by both the mushrooms followed the Freundlich isotherm. Desorption of cadmium from mushrooms by dilute HCl was minimal (19%), but rapid.

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)0.003
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207