MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490650721 · doi:10.1002/ep.12379

Research on the effect of additives on mercury speciation in coal‐fired derived flue gas

2016· article· en· W2490650721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhengyang Gao, Liwei Sun, Shaokun Lv, Pengfei Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Progress & Sustainable Energy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Flue-gas desulfurizationFlue gasChemistrySorbentElemental mercuryEnvironmental chemistryInorganic chemistryCoalCalcium oxideBromideFlueAdsorptionWaste managementOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to study the effect of additives on mercury speciation in coal‐fired derived flue gases, the additives experiment was conducted in one 110MW coal‐fired power plant, the additives including calcium bromide and iron oxide. Taking advantage of the Ontario Water Act (OHM) and sorbent tube method, mercury at the denitration (SCR) entrance and export and desulfurization (WFGD) entrance was sampled and the variation of mercury before and during adding the additives was analyzed. The results show that the additives of calcium bromide can oxidize elemental mercury and contribute to increasing the proportion of divalent mercury, and in denitration device, the ratio of divalent mercury in flue gas shows an increasing trend along with the increasing of calcium bromide. However, there is no such trend appearing at desulfurization entrance. In addition, the additives of iron oxide have no obvious effect on the oxidation of elemental mercury in flue gas. Adding a small amount of iron oxide has little effect on the form of mercury, and may even reduce the proportion of divalent mercury. © 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 35: 1566–1574, 2016

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Progress & Sustainable EnergySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207