Optimization of Phosphogypsum By-Production Using Orthophosphoric Acid as Leaching Solvent with DifferentTemperatures and Leaching Time Periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphoric acid production generates unavoidable calcium sulfate by product (i.e. phosphogypsum (PG)) that is usually disposed either within a nearby located gypsum stacking system. However nowadays this type of industry has been faced with two main problems; these are the formation of huge stockpiles of phosphogypsum that affects the environment due to the presence of harmful radiations that is emitted from the uranium. In addition it contains P2O5>1.0 wt% and fluorine >0.18 wt%, which makes it not suitable for the cement industry. At the same time consuming large quantity of expensive sulphuric acid that becomes a hazardous waste material too. The production ratio of PG verses marketable P2O5 as acid in the world is high as much as 5 tons of PG are produced for each ton of P2O5; in Jordan the ratio is around 5.0 – 5.3 ton of PG / ton of P2O5 produced depending on the phosphate rock composition, which means a huge amount of PG will accumulate at the Fertilizer plant in Aqaba. The major advantages of using orthophosphoric acid as leaching solvent is the decreasing ratio of the residual materials verses marketable P2O5to be589 kg /ton of P2O5 produced. These results were obtained by utilizing the wet agitation leaching technique, compared with 5.0 – 5.3 ton of disposed PG/ton of P2O5produced by Jordan Phosphate Mines Company Ltd., (JPMC). However, this alternative technique resulted in lowerP2O5 extraction, but decrease in bulk of the residue. The disadvantage is the higher dissolution of calcium phosphate and thus considerable calcium well remain in solution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".