MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300882514 · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01612

Development of a Green Technology for Mercury Recycling from Spent Compact Fluorescent Lamps Using Iron Oxides Nanoparticles and Electrochemistry

2016· article· en· W2300882514 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhenzhong Hu, Uday Kurien, Kuzivakwashe Murwira, Avik J. Ghoshdastidar, Oleg Nepotchatykh, Parisa A. Ariya

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMercury (programming language)ElectrolysisNanoparticleElectrochemistryChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceNanotechnologyElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of energy efficient mercury containing lamps and impending regulations on the control of mercury emissions has necessitated the development of green mercury control technologies such as nanosorbent capture and electrolysis regeneration. Herein we describe a two-step green technique to remove and recycle mercury from spent compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). The first element included the assessment of capture efficiencies of mercury vapor on magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ) and maghemite (γ-Fe 2 O 3 ), naturally abundant and ubiquitous components of atmospheric dust particles. Around 60 μg of mercury vapor can be removed up to 90% by 1.0 g of magnetite nanoparticles, within a time scale of minutes. The second step included the development of an electrochemical system for the mercury recycling and regeneration of used nanoparticles. Under optimized conditions, up to 85% of mercury was recovered as elemental mercury. Postelectrolysis regenerated iron oxide nanoparticles were used in several sorption–electrolysis cycles without loss of the adsorption capacity, morphology, and surface area. The low energy usage for electrolysis can be supplied by the solar panels. The implications of our results within the context of green technology are herein discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Sustainable Chemistry & EngineeringSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207