Intensified Mineral Carbonation of Natural Canadian Silicates Using Simultaneous Ball Milling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving toward net zero emissions require new approaches and technologies, including capturing CO2 from industrial sources, especially in remote locations where currently using fossil fuels could be unavoidable for generating electricity or machinery for mining, production of cement, steel, hydrogen, gas processing, etc. Mineral carbonation could fix CO2 in a highly stable solid form. This study explores intensifying the carbonation process of natural Canadian silicates and minerals, kimberlite and wollastonite, which are available in mining sites where the emission occurs. Kimberlite is well-known for containing diamonds. After extracting the diamonds, the value of tailings can vary widely depending on the mineral content and the processing costs, while kimberlite is not as reactive as wollastonite for CO2 sequestration purposes. This study explored the effects of ball milling and various methods for intensifying the mineral carbonation process for CO2 sequestration. Calcium and magnesium hydroxides were used as reference materials to assess the effectiveness of the ball-mill reactor. Then, various parameters in the intensification of the carbonation process were investigated, and the effects of additives (sodium hydroxide and magnesium chloride), solvents (pure water and ethanol), and process parameters (temperature, reaction time, and CO2 level) on carbonation and reaction rate, CO2 uptake and mineral conversions were investigated. The carbonated samples were subjected to pH testing, calcimetry, XRD analysis and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For most feedstocks, water as the main solvent led to higher carbonation and precipitating of different carbonates (hydromagnesite, aragonite, calcite, etc.), while for kimberlite, using NaOH led to higher performance. Ball-milling is designed for purposes such as milling, grinding, etc. The centrifugal forces and related phenomena could limit the contraction of CO2 and other materials in the ball mill jar. However, the results of this study suggest that ball-milling can assist in intensifying mineral carbonation reactions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".