MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405156389 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25567

A review on pharmaceutical pollutants removal in water solution by catalytic ozonation using zeolite

2024· review· en· W4405156389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wamegne Kenang Joelle Bavianne, Liming Jing, Ngouana Moffo Ivane Auriol, Shuang Ai, Shi Jiating

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZeolitePollutantCatalysisEnvironmental chemistryWater pollutantsChemistryWaste managementEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of pharmaceutical pollutants in water sources constitute a serious risk to human health and the environment. Catalytic ozonation has emerged as a promising strategy for reducing these pollutants. This procedure uses ozone with the help of catalysts to improve the oxidation of organic molecules. Recently, there has been a lot of interest in using zeolite as an ozonation catalyst in the elimination of pharmaceutical contaminants from water solutions. Zeolites have unique properties such as their high surface area, porosity, and ion‐exchange capabilities, that make them effective catalysts for the decomposition of ozone and the oxidation of organic pollutants into harmless byproducts. This study aims to investigate the efficiency of zeolite catalytic ozonation in the elimination of pharmaceutical pollutants from aqueous solutions encompassing the working mechanisms, the determinants affecting the process's efficiency, potential obstacles, and perspective avenues for advancement within this field.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts→French-language works237,207→