Removal of Nickel(II) from Aqueous Solution by Complexation-Ultrafiltration with Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study confers insight into the removal of Nickel(II) from aqueous solution by complexation-ultrafiltration (CP-UF) technique with water-soluble polymer polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP). The whole experiment process includes five parts: pre-treatment, CP-UF, concentration, decomplexation and regeneration of polymer. Numerous factors affecting the retention rate of Nickel(II) (RNi) and permeate flux (J), such as pH, loading ratio, transmembrane pressure (TMP), complexation time and added salt have been investigated. In the CP-UF process, RNi reaches nearly 94% while pH of 7, loading ratio of 4, TMP of 1.0 bar, temperature of 250C, complexation time of 30 min are chosen to be the optimal parameters. In the process of concentration, J declines slowly and RNi is very high at loading ratio of 4 and pH of 7. Nickel ion concentration in the retentate solution increases linearly with volume concentration factor. In the process of decomplexation, the decomplexation percentage of nickel(II)-PVP complex reaches 42%. The binding capacity of the regenerated PVP is close to that of fresh PVP, and the recovery percentage of binding capacity is higher than 90%.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".