MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171091621 · doi:10.5194/acp-12-11519-2012

The effect of coal-fired power-plant SO <sub>2</sub> and NO <sub>x</sub> control technologies on aerosol nucleation in the source plumes

2012· article· en· W2171091621 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. Lonsdale, Robin Stevens, C. A. Brock, Paul A. Makar, Eladio Knipping, Jeffrey R. Pierce

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNOxPlumeAerosolNucleationAtmospheric sciencesPower stationParticle (ecology)Environmental scienceParticle numberEnvironmental engineeringAir pollutionChemistryMeteorologyPhysicsThermodynamicsCombustionGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Nucleation in coal-fired power-plant plumes can greatly contribute to particle number concentrations near source regions. The changing emissions rates of SO2 and NOx due to pollution-control technologies over recent decades may have had a significant effect on aerosol formation and growth in the plumes with ultimate implications for climate and human health. We use the System for Atmospheric Modeling (SAM) large-eddy simulation model with the TwO-Moment Aerosol Sectional (TOMAS) microphysics algorithm to model the nucleation in plumes of coal-fired plants. We test a range of cases with varying emissions to simulate the implementation of emissions-control technologies between 1997 and 2010. We start by simulating the W. A. Parish power plant (near Houston, TX) during this time period, when NOx emissions were reduced by ~90% and SO2 emissions decreased by ~30%. Increases in plume OH (due to the reduced NOx) produced enhanced SO2 oxidation and an order-of-magnitude increase in particle nucleation in the plume despite the reduction in SO2 emissions. These results suggest that NOx emissions could strongly regulate particle nucleation and growth in power-plant plumes. Next, we test a range of cases with varying emissions to simulate the implementation of SO2 and NOx emissions-control technologies. Particle formation generally increases with SO2 emission, while NOx shows two different regimes: increasing particle formation with increasing NOx under low-NOx emissions and decreasing particle formation with increasing NOx under high-NOx emissions. Next, we compare model results with airborne measurements made in the W. A. Parish power-plant plume in 2000 and 2006, confirming the importance of NOx emissions on new particle formation and highlighting the substantial effect of background aerosol loadings on this process (the more polluted background of the 2006 case caused more than an order-of-magnitude reduction in particle formation in the plume compared to the cleaner test day in 2000). Finally, we calculate particle-formation statistics of 330 coal-fired power plants in the US in 1997 and 2010, and the model results show a median decrease of 19% in particle formation rates from 1997 to 2010 (whereas the W. A. Parish case study showed an increase). Thus, the US power plants, on average, show a different result than was found for the W. A. Parish plant specifically, and it shows that the strong NOx controls (90% reduction) implemented at the W. A. Parish plant (with relatively weak SO2 emissions reductions, 30%) are not representative of most power plants in the US during the past 15 yr. These results suggest that there may be important climate implications of power-plant controls due to changes in plume chemistry and microphysics, but the magnitude and sign of the aerosol changes depend greatly on the relative reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions in each plant. More extensive plume measurements for a range of emissions of SO2 and NOx and in varying background aerosol conditions are needed, however, to better quantify these effects.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations62
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207