MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Evaluation of Functionalized Biocarbon for Mercury Capture

2019· article· en· W2920931979 on OpenAlexafffund
Deepak Pudasainee, Rajender Gupta, Ataullah Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInnotech AlbertaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsSorbentFlue gasMercury (programming language)ChemistryNOxCoalEnvironmental chemistryFly ashNitrogenActivated carbonWaste managementEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryAdsorptionCombustion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, functionalized biocarbon (FBC) as a sorbent to capture mercury (Hg) from flue gas was developed and tested. The sorbent before and after Hg capture was characterized. The developed sorbent was tested for elemental Hg (Hg 0 ) capture efficiency in a (i) Hg pulse injection test, in an argon atmosphere, (ii) simulated flue gas of (a) 350 ppm of SO 2, 5% O 2, and balanced with N 2 or (b) 300 ppm of NO 2, 5% O 2, and balanced with N 2, and (iii) coupon test in a commercially operating coal-fired power plant. Hg 0 capture by FBC in Hg pulse injection tests, simulated flue gas with NO 2 and SO 2, and flue gas from a coal-fired power plant were very promising and comparable to a commercial sorbent. An average Hg capture efficiency of >96% by FBC was noted in all of the experiments. The Hg concentration in the leachate solutions was negligible and below the regulated toxicity limits by a significant factor. Urea-activated biocarbon, used in this study, showed technical parameters comparable to commercial activated carbons (ACs) (high surface area of 500–800 m 2 /g and high nitrogen content of 4 wt %, on a dry basis) and captured the same amount of mercury with a lower cost, which proved the robustness of FBC. The developed FBCs can be employed to capture Hg, where ACs are currently in demand and would offer a cheap alternate replacement with similar capture efficiency.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207