MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939615267 · doi:10.3390/pr7040225

Recent Developments in the Photocatalytic Treatment of Cyanide Wastewater: An Approach to Remediation and Recovery of Metals

2019· article· en· W2939615267 on OpenAlexaff
Luís Andrés Betancourt-Buitrago, Aracely Hernández‐Ramírez, José Colina–Márquez, Ciro Fernando Bustillo‐Lecompte, Lars Rehmann, Fiderman Machuca‐Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
FundersDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsCyanidePhotocatalysisLeaching (pedology)WastewaterChemistryExtraction (chemistry)Environmental remediationMetalGold extractionPotassium cyanideSodium cyanideHuman decontaminationInorganic chemistryEnvironmental chemistryWaste managementCatalysisContaminationEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207