MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405824063 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190606

Comparative Evaluation of Moringa Oleifera, Vicia Faba, and Abelmoschus Esculentus as Natural Coagulants for Turbidity Removal in Water Treatment

2024· article· en· W4405824063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMoringa oleifera research and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoringaAbelmoschusTurbidityVicia fabaEnvironmental scienceAgronomyChemistryBiologyEcologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study researched the use of plant-based coagulants instead of chemical coagulants.The research methodology relies on removing turbidity with natural additives.The results of the current study showed the possibility of replacing chemical coagulants with natural ones.The benefit of that in removing turbidity is that they are safer ad lower in cost, water sample was taken from river, the jar test was used to show the percentage of removal.The results showed the possibility of removing turbidity by up to 80% using the Moringa oleifera and Vicia faba plants, at a dose of 100 mg/L, and the sedimentation time was studied, which showed that 50% of the turbidity was removed within the first 5 minutes using natural coagulation.However, the Vicia faba showed better results than Moringa oleifera in the initial sedimentation of turbidity removed, these results could be due to the high percentage of protein found in Vicia faba.The results of treatment using Abelmoschus esculentus plant were promising, where 78% of the turbidity was removed at a dose of 100 mg/L, however it requires a longer sedimentation time.The results of this study are promising results that gives hope to using natural coagulation instead of chemical coagulation which reduces the negative side effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicMoringa oleifera research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207