An evaluation of the toxicological aspects and potential doses from the inhalation of coal combustion products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews toxicological literature pertaining to coal combustion products (CCPs) inhalation and presents case studies on the inhalation of CCPs from the Kingston Fossil Plant area and from the Colbert Fossil Plant CCP landfill site.While most research regarding coal plant emissions focuses on fly ash, this article takes a holistic approach to examining not only emitted particulate matter such as fly ash, but also the theoretical calculated doses of landfilled CCPs.Furthermore, these doses are compared to in vitro and in vivo studies in order to highlight differences between laboratory-based studies and to emphasize the difficulty in extrapolating effects from inhalation exposures.In both case studies, fugitive emissions from the Kingston ash spill or the Colbert CCP-handling operations did not exceed any national ambient air quality standards or reference concentrations for individual components.Adverse effects such as mild pulmonary inflammation noted in the reviewed literature were in response to doses much higher than would be likely to occur in humans exposed to landfilled CCPs.We conclude that the doses for fugitive emissions calculated herein do not appear to be high enough to elicit a measurable adverse response in humans.Implications: This paper is the first study to assess the potential exposure of inhaled coal combustion products (CCPs).Two case studies, the Kingston and Colbert fossil plant sites, are used to calculate theoretical exposures due to CCPs.Additionally, human exposure results are compared to published toxicological in vitro and in vivo data, which highlights the difficulty in extrapolating these studies to humans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".