MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990876846 · doi:10.1021/es800532b

Novel Regenerable Sorbent for Mercury Capture from Flue Gases of Coal-Fired Power Plant

2008· article· en· W1990876846 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Liu, David Kelly, Hongqun Yang, Christopher Lin, Steve M. Kuznicki, Zhenghe Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)SorbentFlue gasChemistryEnvironmental chemistryAdsorptionWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A natural chabazite-based silver nanocomposite (AgMC) was synthesized to capture mercury from flue gases of coal-fired power plants. Silver nanoparticles were engineered on zeolite through ion-exchange of sodium ions with silver ions, followed by thermal annealing. Mercury sorption test using AgMC was performed at various temperatures by exposing it to either pulse injection of mercury or continuous mercury flow. A complete capture of mercury by AgMC was achieved up to a capture temperature of 250 degrees C. Nano silver particles were shown to be the main active component for mercury capture by amalgamation mechanism. Compared with activated carbon-based sorbents, the sorbent prepared in this study showed a much higher mercury capture capacity and upper temperature limit for mercury capture. More importantly, the mercury captured by the spent AgMC could be easily released for safe disposal and the sorbent regenerated by simple heating at 400 degrees C. Mercury capture tests performed in real flue gas environment showed a much higher level of mercury capture by AgMC than by other potential mercury sorbents tested. In our mercury capture tests, the AgMC exposed to real flue gases showed an increased mercury capture efficiency than the fresh AgMC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations104
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207