MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192808731 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-3061-2016

Passive air sampling of gaseous elemental mercury: a critical review

2016· review· en· W2192808731 on OpenAlexafffund
David S. McLagan, Maxwell Mazur, Carl P. J. Mitchell, Frank Wania

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceElemental mercurySampling (signal processing)Mercury (programming language)Atmosphere (unit)Process engineeringEnvironmental chemistryRemote sensingMeteorologyComputer scienceChemistryEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Because gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) is distributed globally through the atmosphere, reliable means of measuring its concentrations in air are important. Passive air samplers (PASs), designed to be cheap, simple to operate, and to work without electricity, could provide an alternative to established active sampling techniques in applications such as (1) long-term monitoring of atmospheric GEM levels in remote regions and in developing countries, (2) atmospheric mercury source identification and characterization through finely resolved spatial mapping, and (3) the recording of personal exposure to GEM. An effective GEM PAS requires a tightly constrained sampling rate, a large and stable uptake capacity, and a sensitive analytical technique. None of the GEM PASs developed to date achieve levels of accuracy and precision sufficient for the reliable determination of background concentrations over extended deployments. This is due to (1) sampling rates that vary due to meteorological factors and manufacturing inconsistencies, and/or (2) an often low, irreproducible and/or unstable uptake capacity of the employed sorbents. While we identify shortcomings of existing GEM PAS, we also reveal potential routes to overcome those difficulties. Activated carbon and nanostructured metal surfaces hold promise as effective sorbents. Sampler designs incorporating diffusive barriers should be able to notably reduce the influence of wind on sampling rates.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207