Extraction of Aluminium from Kaolin: a Comparative Study of Hydrometallurgical Processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase of aluminium demand globally, raises the interest of developing alternative technologies to produce alumina from non-bauxitic sources, especially clays. This paper studies the extraction of aluminium from kaolin through leaching process, using aqueous solutions of acids and bases, as leaching agents. For this study, crude kaolin excavated in Milos Island, Greece, was used. Before leaching, crude kaolin was calcined; calcination achieves the dehydroxylation of kaolinite, which is the main mineralogical phase of kaolin and its transformation to metakaolin, an amorphous Al-Si phase from which aluminium is easily leached. Calcination of the crude kaolin used in this work was taken place at 850 o C for 2 h, given that these conditions revealed as optimum in the relevant experimental investigation. Leaching of aluminium from the calcined kaolin was performed with aqueous solutions of mineral acids (HCl, HNO 3 and H 2 SO 4 ), organic acids (C 2 H 2 O 4 , C 2 H 4 O 2 and C 6 H 8 O 7 ) and bases (NaOH, KOH and NH 4 OH). All leaching experiments were performed under constant conditions, regardless the leaching agent used. According to the experimental results, acids were proved more effective in aluminium extraction, than bases. However, aluminum extraction was accompanied by simultaneous extraction of Si which comprises an important impurity for the production of alumina from the pregnant liquor. Based on this consideration, oxalic acid was revealed as the most effective leaching agent, yielding more than 75% extraction of Al and less than 5% Si extraction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it