Process development for biooxidation of refractory gold ore using Ferroplasma acidophilum: A bench-scale case study of gold recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of biooxidation using Ferroplasma acidiphilum on gold recovery from high-grade (HGOS) and low-grade ore samples (LGOS). Pretreatment methods are caaried out in stirred tank reactors and column tests. Results showed that the stirred tank reactor yielded higher recovery rates for key elements, with gold recovery reaching 55 % for HGOS compared to 40 % for LGOS using the column test. Optimal conditions for biooxidation were identified, including aeration flow rates of 1.0–1.5 L/min and agitation speeds of 300–450 rpm, which facilitated effective microbial activity and pyrite dissolution. During cyanidation, gold recovery was highest at a pH of 10.5, with up to 60 % recovery at 8 (g/L) NaCN. However, at pH levels above 11, gold recovery decreased to around 40 % due to competing chemical species and metal hydroxide precipitation. The study also found that extending cyanidation time enhanced gold recovery, with significant increases observed within the first 10 h.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".