MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2384372183

Influence and Control of Electrostatic Precipitators and Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems on the Speciation of Mercury in Flue Gas

2009· article· en· W2384372183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Changxing Hu, Zhou Jinsong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Power Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlue gasMercury (programming language)Flue-gas desulfurizationElectrostatic precipitatorChemistryCoalWaste managementEnvironmental chemistryFly ashFlue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustionBoiler (water heating)Environmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tests were carried out for the concentration and speciation of mercury in the flue gas before and after 6 sets of typical electrostatic precipitator(ESP) and wet flue gas desulfurization(WFGD) system of coal fired power stations by use of Ontario Hydro method and on-line mercury monitoring technology.The influence and control ability of the two devices on speciation transformation of mercury in the flue gas were also studied.Results show that collection of fly ash by ESP directly decreases the proportion of particle mercury in the flue gas.For the typical coal-fired boilers that had been tested,the average proportion of particle mercury in coal-fired flue gas before ESP is about 30%,and decreases to about 5% after ESP.The speciation of mercury in the flue gas changes greatly after being washed by WFGD system.Almost all of the bivalent mercury is captured.The higher the proportion of bivalent mercury is in the flue gas entering the WFGD system,the higher the efficiency is for the mercury removal in the flue gas by WFGD system.The coal-fired power plants equipped with disposal devices for tail flue gas,such as selective catalytic reduction(SCR) denitrator +ESP+WFGD,can well control the mercury emission from the flue gas.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Power EngineeringSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207