Regression modeling of gas-particle partitioning of atmospheric oxidized mercury from temperature data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models describing the partitioning of atmospheric oxidized mercury (Hg(II)) between the gas and fine particulate phases were developed as a function of temperature. The models were derived from regression analysis of the gas-particle partitioning parameters, defined by a partition coefficient (Kp) and Hg(II) fraction in fine particles (fPBM) and temperature data from 10 North American sites. The generalized model, log(1/Kp) = 12.69–3485.30(1/T) (R2 = 0.55; root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 1.06 m3/µg for Kp), predicted the observed average Kp at 7 of the 10 sites. Discrepancies between the predicted and observed average Kp were found at the sites impacted by large Hg sources because the model had not accounted for the different mercury speciation profile and aerosol compositions of different sources. Site-specific equations were also generated from average Kp and fPBM corresponding to temperature interval data. The site-specific models were more accurate than the generalized Kp model at predicting the observations at 9 of the 10 sites as indicated by RMSE of 0.22–0.5 m3/µg for Kp and 0.03–0.08 for fPBM. Both models reproduced the observed monthly average values, except for a peak in Hg(II) partitioning observed during summer at two locations. Weak correlations between the site-specific model Kp or fPBM and observations suggest the role of aerosol composition, aerosol water content, and relative humidity factors on Hg(II) partitioning. The use of local temperature data to parameterize Hg(II) partitioning in the proposed models potentially improves the estimation of mercury cycling in chemical transport models and elsewhere.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".