Each claim states how it is known and cites its evidence.
EstablishedCompared material: entity:penouta-niobium-pentoxide, formula Nb2O5. Specification material: entity:niobium-pentoxide, formula Nb2O5. The join is on the stated formula, checked by identifier and not by name — a ferroniobium, a niobium metal, a niobium carbide or a niobium salt would all fail it, and so would a grade whose name merely sounded similar.
Reported for this deposit
The material this route produces and the material these specifications govern are the same compound, and the match rests on that and nothing else. The Spanish study identifies its product as niobium oxide and reports its composition as a percentage of oxides led by Nb2O5; the Russian producer identifies its material as ниобия пентаоксид, Nb2O5. Same formula, so a comparison is about the same substance. It does NOT follow that this product is of any of these grades, that the producer made it, or that anything obliged it to meet them.
- assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED
Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence · 4 sources, multiple sources, independence unknown
Evidence: Rodríguez 2020 · Peer-reviewed; ОАО «Соликамский магниевый завод» (OAO Solikamsk Magnesium Works) n.d. · Peer-reviewed; ОАО «Соликамский магниевый завод» (OAO Solikamsk Magnesium Works) n.d. · Peer-reviewed; ОАО «Соликамский магниевый завод» (OAO Solikamsk Magnesium Works) n.d. · Peer-reviewed
Establishedanhydrous niobium oxide, the calcined product of the route, expressed as a percentage of oxides (X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy using a Bruker S8 AA spectrometer, as the source states for its composition analyses; the source also names an Agilent ICP-OES model 5100 VDV for composition, and attributes the XRF instrument parenthetically to Varian, which is preserved as the source's own inconsistency): Nb2O5 not carried, Ta2O5 1.8 ± 0.1 %, MnO 0.8 ± 0.02 %, CaO 0.6 ± 0.02 %, Fe2O3 0.6 ± 0.02 %, WO3 0.3 ± 0.01 %, Al2O3 0.2 ± 0.006 %, ZrO2 0.2 ± 0.007 %, SnO2 0.1 ± 0.004 %, MgO 0.09 ± 0.003 %, TiO2 0.07 ± 0.002 %, SiO2 0.06 ± 0.002 %, NiO 0.01 ± 0.003 %, ZnO 0.01 ± 0.003 %
Measured at this deposit
The product has a measured impurity profile. It was determined by X-ray fluorescence and every figure is expressed as a mass percentage of the OXIDE, which is the basis the table itself states. Thirteen impurity oxides are reported, each with an uncertainty, and tantalum dominates them at 1.8 per cent as Ta2O5.
- assertion basis: SUBJECT_MEASURED
Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence · one source
Evidence: Rodríguez 2020 · Peer-reviewed
EstablishedProse, abstract and conclusions: 98.5 per cent. Table 3: 95.1 ± 2.9 per cent. Arithmetic that bears on it: the table's fourteen rows sum to 99.94 per cent, so the table is internally coherent; substituting 98.5 for its Nb2O5 row would make the same fourteen rows sum to 103.3 per cent, which is impossible. That is a reason to distrust the prose figure. It is NOT a reason to publish the table's figure as the product's established purity, because the source that reports the table is the same source that reports the prose, and it has not chosen between them.
Reported for this deposit
The study gives two different values for the same quantity — the Nb2O5 content of this product — and does not reconcile them. Its prose, abstract and conclusions say 98.5 per cent. Its own composition table, from the same XRF analysis of the same product, says 95.1 per cent. The two cannot both be true, and the difference is larger than the uncertainty the table itself states: 95.1 plus 2.9 reaches 98.0 and still does not reach 98.5. The corpus records both figures and adopts neither as the product's Nb2O5 content.
Not stated verbatim by the source — derived: 95.1 + 2.9 = 98.0 < 98.5 AND (99.94 - 95.1) + 98.5 = 103.34 > 100 ⟹ the prose figure and the table cannot both holdBoth steps consume only figures the source itself prints. The first shows the two values differ by more than the table's own stated uncertainty, so rounding does not reconcile them. The second substitutes the prose figure into the table the source published and shows the fourteen rows would then sum past 100 per cent, which no composition may do. The step is Lithoen’s and it is a real one: the source performs neither check and states no conflict. What the derivation establishes is that the source is inconsistent — never which of its two figures is right, because the arithmetic cannot tell that and neither can this corpus.
- assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED
Evidence support: Derived from the cited evidence · one source
Evidence: Rodríguez 2020 · Peer-reviewed
EstablishedNb2O5: 98.5 per cent stated in prose, 95.1 ± 2.9 per cent stated in Table 3, IRRECONCILABLE — see claim:penouta-nb2o5-purity-figures-conflict. Product made by precipitation with ammonia, drying at 80 degrees Celsius and calcination at 1200 degrees Celsius for 4 hours under nitrogen with about 19 per cent weight loss. Tantalum salt 97.3 per cent purity, precipitated with potassium fluoride. Reported as a tantalum SALT, not as Ta2O5.
Measured at this deposit
The study reports a purity for each of its two products. For the niobium oxide it states 98.5 per cent in its prose, abstract and conclusions, while its own XRF composition table gives 95.1 ± 2.9 per cent for the same product's Nb2O5; this corpus records both and adopts neither. For the tantalum side it states a tantalum salt of 97.3 per cent purity after calcination and purification, and there the prose and the table are not in conflict. Neither figure is a high-purity or electronic grade, and the study establishes no specification for either product.
- assertion basis: SUBJECT_MEASURED
Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence · one source
Evidence: Rodríguez 2020 · Peer-reviewed