Recovery of Cu(II) from nickel laterite leach using prereduction and chelating resin extraction: Batch and continuous experiments
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
Abstract The processing of laterite ores for nickel and cobalt production is increasing to meet the global demand for these metals. Sulphuric acid is used as a leaching agent, and metals present in the solution may be recovered by many different processes, such as ion exchange. The main problem with nickel limonite layer leach solution is the high concentration of iron, which decreases the efficiency of resin adsorption of nickel and cobalt. The removal of iron by oxidation and precipitation results in nickel, copper, and cobalt losses (co‐precipitation). The aim of this work was to investigate the chelating resin extraction to recover copper from a leachate combined with a pre‐reduction process, in order to increase the resin's efficiency and to increase its pH above 2.00. The following three synthetic solutions were studied: first, a solution prepared with Fe(III); the second solution was prepared with Fe(II); and the last solution was prepared with Fe(III) using a reducing process. Batch experiments were performed to study the influence of pH and temperature, and column experiments with three solutions were compared in order to verify suitable conditions to recover Cu(II) in a fixed‐bed column process.
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