MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403458401 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122767

Stability of As- and Mn-sludge after neutral mine water treatment using Fe(VI) vs electrocoagulation

2024· article· en· W4403458401 on OpenAlexafffund
Reem Safira, Abdellatif Elghali, Mostafa Benzaazoua, Lucie Coudert, Éric Rosa, Carmen Mihaela Neculita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsElectrocoagulationEnvironmental scienceWater treatmentManganeseWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryChemistryPulp and paper industryMetallurgyMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrocoagulation (ECG) and ferrate (Fe(VI))-based processes are increasingly acknowledged as efficient for the simultaneous removal of As and Mn from synthetic and real mine effluents. Prior to design of full-scale applications, more information on the physicochemical, mineralogical, and environmental characterization of the produced sludge is required. The main objective of this study was to characterize and evaluate the leaching potential of problematic elements in As- and Mn-rich sludge produced during ECG or Fe(VI) treatment of circumneutral surrogate mine water. To do so, PHREEQC modelling was carried out on the effluents, before and after ECG or Fe(VI) treatment, to calculate the saturation index of dissolved As, Fe, and Mn species. A physicochemical and mineralogical characterization of the sludge was also performed using powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) and a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer (SEM-EDS). Then, a non-sequential selective extraction procedure (N-SEP) combined with a USGS field leaching test (FLT) were conducted to evaluate the environmental behaviour of the As- and Mn-rich sludge. Geochemical modelling indicated that the Fe(VI) and ECG processes favor the precipitation of Fe-(oxy)hydroxides (lepidocrocite, schwertmannite, ferrihydrite). Chemical characterization showed that the Fe(VI)-sludge contained higher As and Mn concentrations and lower Fe concentrations than the ECG-sludge (3.8% As, 5.3% Mn, and 34% Fe for the Fe(VI)-sludge vs 1.2% As, 0.77% Mn, and 52% Fe for the ECG-sludge). These findings can be explained by the smaller amount of sludge produced during the Fe(VI) treatment and the higher removal efficiency of this method, especially for Mn. The PXRD patterns suggested the formation of poorly crystalline Fe-(oxy)hydroxides (lepidocrocite or βFeO(OH) in the ECG-sludge vs ferrihydrite in the Fe(VI)-sludge); however, no As- or Mn-bearing minerals were identified. Findings from N-SEP tests showed different speciation of As and Mn in the sludge, with a higher proportion of As bound to poorly crystalline Fe-(oxy)hydroxides in the Fe(VI) sludge than the ECG-sludge (97% and 71%, respectively), and higher proportion of Mn associated with the residuals in the Fe(VI)-sludge than the ECG-sludge (57% and 5.7%, respectively). Finally, FLT results indicated that very low concentrations of As (<0.05 mg/L) and Mn (<0.5 mg/L) were leached from the ECG- and Fe(VI)-sludge, with the Fe(VI) treatment resulting in slightly better As and Mn immobilization in the sludge relative to the ECG process. Nevertheless, both treatment processes were satisfactory in terms of efficient removal of As and Mn and their immobilization in the produced sludge.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207