MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Atmospheric Lead Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants with Different Boilers and APCDs in Guizhou, Southwest China

2019· article· en· W2983173956 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyu Li, Xiangyang Bi, Zhonggen Li, Leiming Zhang, Shan Li, Ji Chen, Xinbin Feng, Xuewu Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersK. C. Wong Education FoundationHuaqiao UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFly ashFlue gasCoalEnvironmental sciencePulverized coal-fired boilerBottom ashGypsumWaste managementFluidized bed combustionAir pollutionMetallurgyChemistryMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead (Pb) emissions into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources have attracted considerable attention due to lead’s high toxicity and associated human health and environmental impacts. Pb emission inventories need to be updated considering the development of modern industry as well as the transformation and upgrading of industrial equipment in recent years. Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) have been an important source of atmospheric Pb emission in China since the late 1990s, while tremendous advantages have been achieved in the air-pollution control devices (APCDs) in the most recent two decades. In this study, Pb emissions from eight CFPPs, two of which have circulating fluidized bed boilers (CFB) and the others have pulverized coal fired boilers (PC), in Guizhou province, Southwest China were investigated. Solid samples including feed fuel (coal, gangue, and coal slime), limestone, bottom ash, fly ash, and gypsum, as well as stack flue gas samples were simultaneously collected for determining the internal partitioning behavior and the atmospheric emissions of Pb from these CFPPs. Pb concentrations of feed coal, limestone, bottom ash, fly ash, gypsum, and stack flue gas were in the range of 10.17–30.94, 0.36–3.08, 7.75–27.10, 33.56–73.16, 0.34–2.18 mg·kg–1, and 0.33–1.58 μg·Nm−3, respectively. The mass balance (output/input) ratio of Pb was in the range of 83.73–124.95%, with input dominated by the feed coal (95.89–99.96%) and output by fly ash (73.17–97.54%), followed by bottom ash (2.16–26.76%) and atmospheric emissions (0.01–0.08%). More Pb ended up in PC fly ash (88.89–97.54%) than CFB fly ash (73.17–81.19%), but an opposite trend was found in the bottom ash for different boilers. Pb emission factors (EMFs) could not be differentiated significantly between PC and CFB boilers, which were in the range of 2.32–10.67 mg·t–1 fuel, 1.28–6.51 μg·(kW·h)−1, or 0.12–0.51 g·TJ–1. Atmospheric Pb emissions from Guizhou’s CFPP were estimated to be 430 ± 163 kg·y–1 in 2017, much lower than previously reported values.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207