MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bioleaching and Kinetic Investigation of WPCBs by A. Ferrooxidans, A. Thiooxidans and their Mixtures

2018· article· en· W2885380610 on OpenAlexaff
Melika Mostafavi, S.M.J. Mirazimi, Fereshteh Rashchi, Fariborz Faraji, Navid Mostoufi

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioleachingKinetic energyChemistryMetallurgyMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioleaching was used to mobilize Cu, Zn and Ni from waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs) and eliminate hazardous metal species from these wastes. Pulp density (PD) and medium culture are two effective factors which have been optimized in this paper. The bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans (A. ferrooxidans) and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans (A. thiooxidans) and their mixture were grown and adapted in the presence of WPCBs and then used as bioleaching bacteria to solubilize metals from PCBs. The experimental results demonstrated that 15 g/L WPCB is the best solid concentration which can be tolerated by the bacteria. Comparing different inoculation ratios, Cu (86%), Zn (100%) and Ni (100%) were recovered after 25 days of bioleaching, which suggests that the rate of metal recovery is significantly influenced by PD. Kinetics of bioleaching reactions was investigated in this work and the shrinking core model (SCM) was used to describe the kinetics of the process of no pretreated WPCBs. A constrained multi-linear regression analysis using the least square technique was employed to determine the rate controlling mechanism in each operating condition. Based on the results, diffusion through solid product layer was the major controlling mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207