Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Hydro Method(OHM) was used to sample and analyze the mercury concentration in flue gas before and after ESP and WFGD in a 300 MW power plant.Mercury content in coal,bottom slag,fly ash of ESP,adsorbent(limestone) and desulfurization product(gypsum) was detected by DMA80.Mercury mass balance was calculated based on the online measurements through the boiler system.Factors affecting the distribution,transformation and removal of mercury in flue gas were discussed.The results show that the gaseous mercury(Hg0 and Hg2+) in flue gas accounts for about 95% of total mercury,while mercury in the bottom ash can be neglected.More than 95% of Hgp and a little gaseous phase mercury(Hg0 and Hg2+)were removed by ESP.The efficiencies to remove total mercury by ESP range from 12.77% to 17.38%.A removal efficiency for Hg2+(g) reaches up to 79.93%~90.53% by WFGD,however,the content of Hg0 after WFGD increases because part of oxidized mercury is reduced to elemental mercury during WFGD.The efficiencies to remove total mercury by WFGD range from 9.68% to 29.36%.ESP and WFGD can remove all of the Hgp and a majority of Hg2+ with a total mercury removal efficiency of 25.38%~38.38%.In general,the demercuration in the conventional devices of ESP and WFGD is not high,which perhaps is owing to the lower concentration of Cl in feed coal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".