MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312389631 · doi:10.1021/es5052793

Potential Hazards of Brominated Carbon Sorbents for Mercury Emission Control

2015· article· en· W2312389631 on OpenAlexafffund
Teresa M. Bisson, Zhenghe Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSorbentMercury (programming language)BromineLeaching (pedology)ChemistryEnvironmental chemistryToxicity characteristic leaching procedureActivated carbonFly ashCoal combustion productsAdsorptionFlue gasCoalWaste managementEnvironmental scienceHeavy metalsSoil waterOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mercury is a toxic air pollutant, emitted from the combustion of coal. Activated Carbon (AC) or other carbon sorbent (CS) injection into coal combustion flue gases can remove elemental mercury through an adsorption process. Recently, a brominated CS with biomass ash as the carbon source (Br-Ash) was developed as an alternative for costly AC-based sorbent for mercury capture. After mercury capture, these sorbents are disposed in landfill, and the stability of bromine and captured mercury is of paramount importance. The objective of this study is to determine the fate of mercury and bromine from Br-Ash and brominated AC after their service. Mercury and bromine leaching tests were conducted using the standard toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). The mercury was found to be stable on both the Br-Ash and commercial brominated AC sorbents, while the bromine leached into the aqueous phase considerably. Mercury pulse injection tests on the sorbent material after leaching indicate that both sorbents retain significant mercury capture capability even after the majority of bromine was removed. Testing of the Br-Ash sorbent over a wider range of pH and liquid:solid ratios resulted in leaching of <5% of mercury adsorbed on the Br-Ash. XPS analysis indicated more organically bound Br and less metal-Br bonds after leaching.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207