MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404842579 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2024-0164

Optimization of porous volcanic ash-based geopolymer for crystal violet adsorption using the Box-Behnken design

2024· article· en· W4404842579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Idriss Lenou, Armand Tchakounte, Victor O. Shikuku, Ludovic Kemdjien, Kuisseu Valere, Joseph Dika, Charles Melea Kede

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBox–Behnken designCrystal violetChemistryAdsorptionVolcanic ashGeopolymerChemical engineeringPorosityFly ashChromatographyVolcanoResponse surface methodologyGeochemistryOrganic chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volcanic ash was used as a precursor for the synthesis of a geopolymer activated by sodium hydroxide and using hydrogen peroxide as a pore-forming agent. Factors controlling geopolymer synthesis such as sodium hydroxide concentration (6–12 mol/L), liquid/solid mass ratio (0.3–0.5), and H2O2 mass concentration (0%–2%) were optimized using the Box-Behnken design method. The chosen process variables were optimized to enhance both the geopolymer's porosity and its effectiveness in removing crystal violet. Sodium hydroxide concentration and H2O2 mass concentration had a significant effect on both responses. Under optimal conditions of 6 mol/L NaOH concentration, a 0.3 liquid/solid ratio, and 2% H2O2 mass concentration, the model-predicted and experimental values for both responses were highly comparable. Additionally, response surface methodology was used to assess the removal of crystal violet from an aqueous solution, employing the geopolymer produced under these optimal conditions as the adsorbent. Experiments were carried out according to the Box-Behnken statistical surface design with four input parameters, namely, contact time (A: 10–120 min), initial crystal violet concentration (B: 20–100 mg/L), adsorbent dose (C: 0.1–0.6 g), and pH (D: 3–9). Regression analysis indicated a strong fit of the experimental data to the second-order polynomial model, with a coefficient of determination ( R2) of 0.9864 and a Fisher's F value of 61.97. Optimization of the parameters A (35.415 mg/L), B (98.184 min), C (0.359 g), and pH (6.950) achieved a maximum crystal violet removal of 98.413% by the geopolymer.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207