Membrane technology applied to acid mine drainage from copper mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate the treatment of high-strength acid mine drainage (AMD) from copper mining by nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) at pilot scale. The performances of two commercial spiral-wound membranes - NF99 and RO98pHt, both from Alfa Laval - were compared. The effects of pressure and feed flow on ion rejection and permeate flux were evaluated. The results showed high ion removal under optimum pressure conditions, which reached 92% for the NF99 membrane and 98% for the RO98pHt membrane. Sulfate removal reached 97% and 99% for NF99 and RO98pHt, respectively. In the case of copper, aluminum, iron and manganese, the removal percentage surpassed 95% in both membranes. Although concentration polarization limited NF performance at higher pressures, permeate fluxes observed in NF were five times greater than those obtained by RO, with only slightly lower divalent ion rejection rates, making it a promising option for the treatment of AMD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".