Relative Accuracy Testing of an X-Ray Fluorescence-Based Mercury Monitor at Coal-Fired Boilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative accuracy (RA) of a newly developed mercury continuous emissions monitor, based on X-ray fluorescence, was determined by comparing analysis results at coal-fired plants with two certified reference methods (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] Method D6784-02 and U.S. Environment Protection Agency [EPA] Method 29). During the first determination, the monitor had an RA of 25% compared with ASTM Method D6784-02 (Ontario Hydro Method). However, the Ontario Hydro Method performed poorly, because the mercury concentrations were near the detection limit of the reference method. The mercury in this exhaust stream was primarily elemental. The second test was performed at a U.S. Army boiler against EPA Reference Method 29. Mercury and arsenic were spiked because of expected low mercury concentrations. The monitor had an RA of 16% for arsenic and 17% for mercury, meeting RA requirements of EPA Performance Specification 12a. The results suggest that the sampling stream contained significant percentages of both elemental and oxidized mercury. The monitor was successful at measuring total mercury in particulate and vapor forms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".