Recent Developments in the Photocatalytic Treatment of Cyanide Wastewater: An Approach to Remediation and Recovery of Metals
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
For gold extraction, the most used extraction technique is the Merrill-Crow process, which uses lixiviants as sodium or potassium cyanide for gold leaching at alkaline conditions. The cyanide ion has an affinity not only for gold and silver, but for other metals in the ores, such as Al, Fe, Cu, Ni, Zn, and other toxic metals like Hg, As, Cr, Co, Pb, Sn, and Mn. After the extraction stage, the resulting wastewater is concentrated at alkaline conditions with concentrations up to 1000 ppm of metals. Photocatalysis is an advanced oxidation process (AOP) able to generate a photoreaction in the solid surface of a semiconductor activated by light. Although it is well known that photocatalytic processes can remove metals in solution, there are no compilations about the researches on photocatalytic removal of metals in wastewater with cyanide. Hence, this review comprises the existing applications of photocatalytic processes to remove metal and in some cases recover cyanide from recalcitrant wastewater from gold extraction. The use of this process, in general, requires the addition of several scavengers in order to force the mechanism to a pathway where the electrons can be transferred to the metal-cyanide matrices, or elsewhere the entire metallic cyanocomplex can be degraded by an oxidative pathway.
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