Authors:Fangli Fan, Huajie Ding, Jing Bai, Xiaolei Wu, Fuan Lei, Wei Tian, Yang Wang, and Zhi Qin
The sorption of uranium(VI) from aqueous solutions was investigated using synthesized magnesium silicate hollow spheres as
a novel adsorbent. Batch experiments were conducted to study the effects of initial pH, amount of adsorbent, contact time
and initial U(VI) concentrations on uranium sorption efficiency. The desorbing of U(VI) and the effect of coexisting ions
were also investigated. Kinetic studies showed that the sorption followed a pseudo-second-order kinetic model. The Langmuir
sorption isotherm model correlates well with the uranium sorption equilibrium data for the concentration range of 25–400 mg/L.
The maximum uranium sorption capacity onto magnesium silicate hollow spheres was estimated to be about 107 mg/g under the
experimental conditions. Desorption of uranium was achieved using inorganic acid as the desorbing agent. The practical utility
of magnesium silicate hollow spheres for U(VI) uptake was investigated with high salt concentration of intercrystalline brine.
This work suggests that magnesium silicate hollow spheres can be used as a highly efficient adsorbent for removal of uranium
from aqueous solutions.
Authors:Chao Han, Bei Hu, Qin Fan, Jing Duan, and Xi Li
Translation assessment represents a productive line of research in Translation Studies. An array of methods has been trialled to assess translation quality, ranging from intuitive assessment to error analysis and from rubric scoring to item-based assessment. In this article, we introduce a lesser-known approach to translation assessment called comparative judgement. Rooted in psychophysical analysis, comparative judgement grounds itself on the assumption that humans tend to be more accurate in making relative judgements than in making absolute judgements. We conducted an experiment, as both a methodological exploration and a feasibility investigation, in which novice and experienced judges were recruited to assess English-Chinese translation, using a computerised comparative judgement platform. The collected data were analysed to shed light on the validity and reliability of assessment results and the judges’ perceptions. Our analysis shows that (1) overall, comparative judgement produced valid measures and facilitated judgement reliability, although such results seemed to be affected by translation directionality and judges’ experience, and (2) the judges were generally confident about their decisions, despite some emergent factors undermining the validity of their decision making. Finally, we discuss the use of comparative judgement as a possible method in translation assessment and its implications for future practice and research.