Activated Carbon Obtained from Coffee and Orange Wastes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic coffee and orange wastes have increased considerably in the last decade. In order to utilize this "garbage", the present study focuses on the obtaining of activated carbon from them. The pyrolysis of the samples, followed by chemical activation and subsequent neutralization, allowed the establishment of two protocols “A” and “B”, with slight variations depending on the residue. The results indicate that the efficiency of the activated carbon from coffee grounds using protocol "A" and "B" was 3.68% and 6.30%, respectively. On the other hand, the carbon obtained from orange peels had an efficiency of 5.00 % and 2.88 %, respectively. To confirm that the activated carbon from each type of waste has adsorption and absorption capacity, we performed a colorimetric analysis with methyl blue. These analyses showed that the activated carbon from coffee grounds and orange peels have a retention capacity of 91.09 and 95.25%, respectively, while the retention capacity of a commercial activated carbon was 99.23 %. In this preliminary study, it is shown that several residues considered "garbage" can be used sustainably.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".