Effects of Operation Parameters on Heavy Metallic Ion Removal from Mine Waste by Natural Zeolite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of particle size (0.420-1.1410 mm), dosage (40, 80 g/L), influent concentration (total 10 meq/L, 400 mg/L), contact time (5-180, 270, 360 min), set-temperature (20-32 o C), and heat pre-treatment (200, 400, 600 o C) of natural zeolite on the removal efficiency of heavy metallic ions (HMIs); lead (Pb 2+ ), copper (Cu 2+ ), iron (Fe 3+ ), nickel (Ni 2+ ), and zinc (Zn 2+ ). The sorption process is performed in batch mode with a 100 mL aqueous solution, acidified to a pH level of 2 with concentrated nitric (HNO3) acid. For all experimental parameter conditions examined, the removal efficiency order follows: Pb 2+ >>Fe 3+ >Cu 2+ >Zn 2+ >Ni 2+ ; the zeolite mineral exhibits the greatest preference towards the Pb 2+ ion in all parameter trends. Overall, the removal efficiency is increased with decreasing particle size, as well as increasing dosage, contact time, and set-temperature. The operation is influenced by the studied parameters in the order of: influent concentration > heat pre-treatment level > dosage > particle size > contact time > set-temperature.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".