Cited by 239Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalHeavy Metal Pollution RemediationEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterials

Adsorption of heavy metals from wastewater graphic industry using clinoptilolite zeolite as adsorbent

Zanin, Evandro, Scapinello, Jaqueline, de Oliveira, Maickson, Rambo, Cassiano Lazarotto, Franscescon, Francini, Freitas, Lucimaira, de Mello, Josiane Maria Muneron, Fiori, Marcio Antonio +2 more·2017·Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psep.2016.11.008

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A decrease in concentration of Cu, Fe, and Cr from printing industry wastewater from 0.1220, 0.5598, 0.0935 mg/L to 0.018, 0,111, 0.031 mg/L was reported by Zanin et al. (2017).

    “In other study a decrease in the concentration of Cu, Fe, and Cr from printing industry wastewater from 0.1220, 0.5598, 0.0935 mg/L to 0.018, 0,111, 0.031 mg/L was reported by Zanin et al. (2017).”

    From Adsorption of heavy metals on natural zeolites: A review (2023) · cites this paper as Zanin et al. (2017)

  • Zeolite selectivity followed the order Fe > Cr > Cu, and the adsorption mechanism followed pseudo-first-order kinetics for copper and chromium and pseudo-second-order for iron.

    “zeolite selectivity followed the order Fe > Cr > Cu and the adsorption mechanism followed pseudo-first-order kinetic model for copper and chromium and pseudo-second-order for iron.”
  • Natural Brazilian clinoptilolite adsorbed up to 95.4% iron, 96.0% copper, and 85.1% chromium at 25.0 °C and pH 4.0.

    “revealing adsorption up to 95.4% iron, 96.0% copper, and 85.1% chromium, at 25.0 °C and pH 4.0.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zanin, E., Scapinello, J., de Oliveira, M., Rambo, C. L., Franscescon, F., Freitas, L., de Mello, J. M. M., Fiori, M. A., Oliveira, J. V., & Dal Magro, J.
Affiliations
Community University of Chapecó Region - Unochapecó (BR)
Venue
Process Safety and Environmental Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
105
Pages
194-200
ISSN
  • 0263-8762 (ISSN-L)
  • 0957-5820
OpenAlex
W2552964595
Cited by
239
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 7
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Process Safety and Environmental Protection (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • CNPq
  • CAPES
  • FAPESC/SC
  • MCTI-FINEP
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Heavy Metal Pollution Remediation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
Keywords
heavy metal adsorption, clinoptilolite, copper removal, chromium removal, iron removal, adsorption kinetics, adsorption isotherms, pseudo-first-order kinetics, pseudo-second-order kinetics, Langmuir isotherm, Freundlich isotherm

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review