MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990365794

Development of a sustainable method for the disposal of
\nchromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood

2010· dissertation· en· W6990365794 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsChromated copper arsenateArsenicChromiumCopperLeachateHydrolysisSulfuric acidRaw material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preserved wood is commonly found in solid waste. Among the different types of \npreserved wood, CCA wood has received much attention due to the scale of usage and its \nsignificant role in soil and water contamination after disposal. As the ash of CCA wood is \nhazardous, it cannot be burned, and the best available disposal method is thus landfilling. \nLeaching of the metals from disposed CCA wood in landfills pollutes the environment. \nTo reduce the contamination of CCA, treatment before landfilling is required. \nNowadays, ethanol is seen as a promising source of energy. Lignocellulosic materials \nsuch as wood are resources for ethanol production. This research focuses on the \npossibility of producing ethanol from CCA wood. It suggests that production of ethanol \nwill not only be a solution to the disposal but will also generate a clean fuel. \nThe results showed the existence of copper, chromium and arsenic did not have a \nnegative effect on the fermentation, and producing ethanol from CCA wood is feasible. \nThe copper removed by sulfuric acid completely precipitated during the hydrolysis and \niv \nneutralization. In addition about 50% of the chromium (VI) and also 60% of the arsenic \n(V) were removed from the leachate by yeast during fermentation. \nTCLP tests of the hydrolyzed wood leached less than 4 ppm of arsenic while minimal \namounts of chromium and copper remained in the hydrolyzed wood which makes \nlandfilling of hydrolyzed wood acceptable. \nBaker's yeast behaves selectively by uptaking arsenic (V) and chromium (VI) but not \narsenic (III) and chromium (III). There is competition between copper and chromium \nsorption by yeast. The kinetic model for removal of copper and chromium is a zero order \nmodel while the appropriate model for uptaking arsenic by yeast is a first order model. \nThe kinetic models confirm that there are different mechanisms of uptaking metals by \nyeast, a diffusion mechanism for removal arsenic and a surface adsorption mechanism for \ncopper and chromium. \nAs an overall conclusion of this study, using discarded CCA wood as the feed for ethanol \nproduction is a sustainable method for disposal of CCA treated wood.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207