MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323663306 · doi:10.37871/jbres1673

Toxic Heavy Metals Elimination from Contaminated Effluents Utilizing Various Adsorbents: Critical Mini-Review

2023· article· en· W4323663306 on OpenAlexaff
Waleed Jadaa, Hamad K Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentPollutantWastewaterEnvironmental scienceAdsorptionMercury (programming language)Waste managementEnvironmental chemistryHeavy metalsContaminationBiosorptionActivated carbonChemistryEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The release of massive pollutants amounts continuously because of urbanization and industrialization has caused a big ecological problem worldwide. Due to their activities, effluents of many industries: mining operations, paper/pulp, and batteries, release different heavy metals, including Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb), and Nickel (Ni), into the environment. Heavy metals are of big concern due to their high toxicity, big bioaccumulation susceptibility, and serious threat to humans and ecosystems. Compared to organic pollutants, which are highly influenced by biological and chemical degradation, heavy metals have no degradation into end products using these methods. Therefore, the removal of such metals is considered a big challenge in water purification. For metals removal, different techniques have been applied, such as precipitation, ultrafiltration, and coagulation. However, those applications have many drawbacks: low-efficiency, high consumption of reagents, and generation of toxic sludge. In contrast, adsorption considers an effective method for metal removal, owing to the method’s simplicity, economic and versatility, making it the most convenient way for toxic metals removal. Many conventional adsorbents, such as activated carbon and alumina, have been effectively employed. Nevertheless, the biggest disadvantages of using such adsorbents appear to be their price due to high activation costs and limited reusability. Biosorption has lately emerged as a method with several advantages, including minimal cost, ease of use, and great efficacy, even for trace amounts of metallic ions. This paper aims to review the relevant literature regarding the adsorption method for heavy metals removal from wastewater. Different treatments of heavy metals from wastewater and their related features are highlighted. The metals’ toxicity and hazards to health and the environment are also discussed. The application of various materials as bioadsorbents is explored, such as natural adsorbents and industrial and agricultural wastes.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Research & Environmental SciencesSame topicAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalFrench-language works237,207