Resource Assessment for Phytomining of Platinum Group Metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In memory of John Meech Phytomining has been suggested as a viable process to recover platinum group metals from mineralized soil, rock, or from mine wastes. However, extremes of metal concentration, high or low pH, and salinity that are typical of mining or mineralized materials make them challenging media for plant growth. In this work, the suitability of several PGM-rich materials is assessed for phytomining. Specifically, feed ore, concentrate and tailings from North American Palladium in Canada and surface exposed gossan from the Broken Hill mineral complex in Australia were assessed in the context of phytomining studies. The concentration of Pd and Pt in the tailings from North American Palladium was low (0.7 g/t and 0.1 g/t respectively) and these values are considered too low for phytomining. The ore and concentrate had a significantly higher concentration of precious metals, however the pH (3.6) and mineralogy of these materials are likely to preclude plant growth. The gossan from the Broken Hill mineral complex had a very high concentration for all the six platinum group metals. The concentration of Pd and Pt was 38 g/t and 14 g/t respectively and the concentration of Ir, Os, Rh and Ru in this gossan was greater than 2g/t for each of these elements. The pH of the gossan was 7.5, well within the adequate range for plant growth and is likely to limit the bioavailability of phytotoxic elements in the material such as Cu and Ni. Furthermore the CEC of 38.8 meq/100g indicates that adequate soil nutrients could be held to support plants growth. Gossan from Broken Hill mineral complex is therefore inferred to be a better plant growth media for phytomining of PGMs than feed ore, concentrate and tailings from North American Palladium in Canada. Keywords: phytomining, Platinum-Group-Metals, plant growth parameters
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".