MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223569274 · doi:10.1080/10916466.2022.2060258

Utilization of corncob as adsorbent to remove oil and grease from produced water

2022· article· en· W4223569274 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roberto O. Macêdo-Júnior, Wendell Klismann Santana Campos, Filipe Smith Buarque, Fabiane Santos Serpa, Gabriel Francisco da Silva, Brenda Lohanny Passos Santos, Eliane Bezerra Cavalcanti, Daniel Pereira Silva, Denise Santos Ruzene

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e ComunicaçõesFundação de Apoio à Pesquisa e à Inovação Tecnológica do Estado de SergipeConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorMountain Equipment Co-operative
KeywordsCorncobAdsorptionPulp and paper industryChemistryRaw materialChromatographyParticle sizeGreaseWaste managementOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hazardous composition of produced water (PW) places it as a dangerous contamination agent, which must be treated to meet environmental and operational requirements before disposal, reuse, or reinjection. The current work evaluated an adsorption treatment using raw and pretreated corncob samples to remove total oil and grease (TOG) from PW. The influence of adsorbent dosage (1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 g), particle size (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm), and contact time (60, 120, and 240 min) were tested in a batch system, showing that the lowest oil concentration was achieved with the smallest particle size (0.5 mm) and highest contact time (240 min) and adsorbent dosage (5.0 g). Using a 20 cm secondary partition in the fixed-bed column system was more efficient for TOG removal than a 10 cm one: the raw corncob removed 85.23% of TOG against 17.41% pretreated biomass. Comparative studies showed that the adsorption performance of untreated corncob was superior to that observed for walnut shells (69%), a widely used commercial absorbent. Results indicated corncob’s environmental and economic potential as a natural and cost-effective adsorbent.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePetroleum Science and TechnologySame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207