Removal of Copper Ions from Aqueous Solution by Bentonite Clay Applied in Soil in Leaching Columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of bentonite applied in soil, on the removal of copper (Cu) from aqueous solutions, in leaching columns. The experiment was carried out at laboratory using leaching columns filled with 4 kg of soil mixed with bentonite according to treatments B0, B30, B60 and B90, that is, 0; 30; 60 and 90 t ha-1 of bentonite. Each leaching column (experimental unit) was constituted of a PVC tube, with 0.10m of diameter and 0.50m height sectioned in two 0.20 m rings (10-30 cm and 30-40 cm) and one, on the top, of 0.10 m high, reserved for a hydraulic head of 0.08 m. The columns were placed in a vertical support and saturated with distilled water by capillary ascension. Then percolation began, passing through the column five volumes of pores (initially four liters of water contaminated with 1000 mg of Cu and afterwards one liter of distilled water). Ten leached aliquots of 0.5 volume of pores were collected and stored in polypropylene flasks in a refrigerator for quantification of copper (Cu) by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. At the end of the tests, the solid material contained in each ring was collected and the Cu concentration determinated. Increasing doses of bentonite increased Cu retention in soil; Cu was more retained in the surface layer in all treatments; there was no copper leaching from the columns with 60 and 90 t ha-1 of bentonite application, indicating that all copper was retained in the soil avoiding thus potential risks for groundwater contamination.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".