MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086403441 · doi:10.1021/ef900294s

Measurement of Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions at Coal-Fired Power Plants Using Regular and Speciating Sorbent Traps with In-Stack and Out-of-Stack Sampling Methods<sup>†</sup>

2009· article· en· W2086403441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chin‐Min Cheng, Chien‐Wei Chen, Jiashun Zhu, Chin-Wei Chen, Yao-Wen Kuo, Tung-Han Lin, Shu-Hsien Wen, Yong-Siang Zeng, Juei-Chun Liu, Wei‐Ping Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStack (abstract data type)SorbentCoalMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceSampling (signal processing)Vapor phaseWaste managementChemistryNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringEnvironmental chemistryComputer scienceEngineeringAdsorptionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic investigation of sorbent-trap sampling, which is a method that uses paired sorbent traps to measure total vapor phase mercury (Hg), was carried out at two coal-fired power plants. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects (if any) on data quality when the following aspects of the sorbent trap method are varied: (a) sorbent trap configuration; (b) sampling time; and (c) analytical technique. Also, the performance of a speciating sorbent trap (i.e., a trap capable of separating elemental Hg from oxidized Hg), developed by the Western Kentucky University’s Institute for Combustion Science and Environmental Technology (ICSET), was evaluated by direct comparison against the Ontario Hydro (OH) reference method. Flue gas samples were taken using both “regular” and modified sorbent trap measurement systems. The regular sorbent trap systems used a dual−trap, in-stack sampling technique. The modified systems were equipped with either inertial or cyclone probes and used paired, out-of-stack sorbent traps. Both short-term (1.5 h) and long-term (18 h to 10 days) samples were collected. The OH method was run concurrently during the short-term test runs, to provide reference Hg concentrations. At one facility, mercury concentration data from continuous emission monitoring systems were also recorded during the sorbent trap sampling runs. After sampling, the conventional (nonspeciating) sorbent traps were analyzed for Hg, using either a direct combustion method or a wet-chemistry analytical method (i.e., microwave-assisted digestion coupled with cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy). The speciating traps were analyzed only by the direct combustion method. All of the sorbent trap data collected in the study were evaluated with respect to relative accuracy, relative deviation of paired traps, and mercury breakthrough. The in-stack and out-of-stack sampling methods produced satisfactory relative accuracy results for both the short-term and long-term testing. For the short-term tests, the in-stack sampling results compared more favorably to the OH method than did the out-of-stack results. The relative deviation between the paired traps was considerably higher for the short-term out-of-stack tests than for the long-term tests. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), showed a statistically significant difference ( p < 0.1) between the direct combustion and wet-chemistry analytical methods used in the study; the results from the direct combustion method were consistently higher than the wet-chemistry results. The evaluation of the speciating mercury sorbent trap demonstrated that the trap is capable of providing reasonably accurate total mercury concentrations and speciation data that are somewhat comparable to data obtained with the OH method. Although the results of the study were informative and promising, further evaluation of both the out-of-stack sampling methods and the speciating sorbent trap is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207