MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463416736 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-13807-2016

Speciated atmospheric mercury on haze and non-haze days in an inland city in China

2016· article· en· W2463416736 on OpenAlexaff
Qianqian Hong, Zhouqing Xie, Cheng Liu, Fei Wang, Pinhua Xie, Hui Kang, Jin Xu, Jiancheng Wang, Fengcheng Wu, Pengzhen He, Fusheng Mou, Shidong Fan, Yunsheng Dong, Haicong Zhan, Xiawei Yu, Xiyuan Chi, Jianguo Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHazeSunriseEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesTroposphereMercury (programming language)ParticulatesPollutionEnvironmental chemistryAir pollutionClimatologyChemistryMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Long-term continuous measurements of speciated atmospheric mercury were conducted from July 2013 to June 2014 in Hefei, a midlatitude inland city in eastern central China that experiences frequent haze pollution. The mean concentrations (±standard deviation) of gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM) and particle-bound mercury (PBM) were 3.95 ± 1.93 ng m−3, 2.49 ± 2.41 and 23.3 ± 90.8 pg m−3, respectively, on non-haze days, and 4.74 ± 1.62 ng m−3, 4.32 ± 8.36 and 60.2 ± 131.4 pg m−3, respectively, on haze days. Potential source contribution function (PSCF) analysis suggested that atmospheric mercury pollution on haze days was caused primarily by local emissions, instead of via long-range transport. The poorer mixing conditions on haze days also favored the accumulation of atmospheric mercury. Compared to GEM and GOM, PBM was especially sensitive to haze pollution. The mean PBM concentration on haze days was 2.5 times that on non-haze days due to elevated concentrations of particulate matter. PBM also showed a clear seasonal trend; its concentration was the highest in fall and winter, decreased rapidly in spring and was the lowest in summer, following the same order in the frequency of haze days in different seasons. On both non-haze and haze days, GOM concentrations remained low at night, but increased rapidly just before sunrise, which could be due to diurnal variation in air exchange between the boundary layer and free troposphere. However, non-haze and haze days showed different trends in daytime GEM and GOM concentrations. On non-haze days, GEM and GOM declined synchronously through the afternoon, probably due to the retreat of the free tropospheric air as the height of the atmospheric boundary layer increases. In contrast, on haze days, GOM and GEM showed opposite trends with the highest GOM and lowest GEM observed in the afternoon, suggesting the occurrence of photochemical oxidation. This is supported by simple box-model calculations, which showed that oxidation of GEM to GOM does occur and that the transport of free tropospheric GOM alone is not large enough to account for the observed increase in daytime GOM. Our results further postulate that NO2 aggregation with the HgOH intermediate may be a potential mechanism for the enhanced production of GOM during daytime.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations64
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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