An Investigation of Lanthanum Recovery from an Aqueous Solution by Adsorption (Ion Exchange)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lanthanum (La(III)) is one of the high-demand rare earth elements with applications in various products. However, La(III) in mining waste streams and electronic waste also poses environmental and health concerns. Therefore, the recovery of La(III) in the waste is needed. In the present study, the adsorption of La(III) with Dowex 50W-X8, Amberchrom50WX4, Amberlyst 15, and Amberchrom 50WX2 was evaluated using a shaker water bath. Dowex 50W-X8 was found to be the best adsorbent and was used to investigate the effect of the shaker speed (RPM = 50–150), adsorbent dosage (1.0–4.0 g), pH (2.0–7.0), and temperature (20–40 °C) on adsorption. La(III) adsorption was found to increase with the shaker speed, as expected. On the other hand, the adsorption capacity decreased with the adsorbent amount. Also, the highest La(III) adsorption was observed at pH = 6.0. La(III) percentage removal did not vary significantly with a temperature from 20 °C to 40 °C. However, the first-order kinetic rate constant decreased moderately with increases in temperature. The adsorption of La(III) by Dowex 50-X8 followed the Freundlich isotherm model better than the Langmuir model. In addition, the adsorption kinetics were represented well by the pseudo-first-order kinetic model. Moreover, enthalpy and Gibbs free energy changes were found to be negative, indicating an exothermic and thermodynamically favorable adsorption process.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it