MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102613546 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2020.1853630

Behavior of thallium in pulverized coal utility boiler installations in Southwest China

2020· article· en· W3102613546 on OpenAlexaff
Zhonggen Li, Xian Zhou, Qingfeng Wang, Xinyu Li, Leiming Zhang, Dan Wang, Tianrong He, Yu Cao, Xinbin Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicThallium and Germanium Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersK. C. Wong Education FoundationDepartment of Education of Guizhou ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFly ashFlue gasElectrostatic precipitatorPulverized coal-fired boilerCoalFlue-gas desulfurizationCoal combustion productsBoiler (water heating)GypsumBottom ashMercury (programming language)CombustionTrace elementThalliumWaste managementFlue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustionEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyChemistryMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thallium (Tl) is a toxic element that exists in coal at trace level. Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) consume large amounts of coal and can potentially release this element into surrounding environment. However, knowledge of fates of Tl inside CFPPs and associated atmospheric emissions is still very limited. In this study, five CFPPs with pulverized coal boilers (PC) in Guizhou province, southwest China, were selected for investigation. All input and output solid materials and the stack flue gas samples were collected simultaneously. Tl concentrations in feed coal (0.10–0.34 mg·kg−1) of the five CFPPS were only a third to one half of the national average value. Tl concentrations were obviously higher in fly ash (0.39–1.13 mg·kg−1) than in bottom ash (0.09–0.25 mg·kg−1), indicating notable redistribution of Tl during coal combustion. Tl concentrations were low in limestone (0.01–0.02 mg·kg−1), flue gas desulfurization gypsum (0.01–0.03 mg·kg−1), and the stack flue gas (0.006–0.011 μg·Nm−3). Most Tl inside these CFPPs was captured by electrostatic precipitator or electrostatic precipitator-fabric filter (ESP/ESP-FF) fly ash (88.66%–97.44%), followed by bottom ash (2.13%–10.73%), gypsum (<3.89%), and stack emissions (0.01%–0.05%). Atmospheric emission factors of Tl from different CFPPs are in the range of 0.04–0.09 mg Tl·t−1 coal, 0.02–0.04 μg·(kW·h)−1, or 0.002–0.004 g Tl·TJ−1. Using these emission factors, a total of 3.96 ± 1.32 kg (range: 2.64–5.94 kg) Tl is estimated to be released into the atmosphere annually from CFPPs in Guizhou in 2017. To avoid the cross-media contamination from the combustion products, careful treatment of the captured fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum is needed, considering that a large amount of Tl (average: 728 kg·yr−1; range: 664–792 kg·yr−1) is retained in these solid combustion products and the possibility of formation of more toxic Tl3+ during the combustion process.Implications: Thallium (Tl) is a rare but toxic element. Identifying and quantifying its source are high priorities for controling its contamination. Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) were thought an important source of Tl, but few field studies had been conducted for this area. In this article, we investigated the fate of Tl in five pulverized coal utility power plants in Guizhou province, Southwest China, and found the Tl concentration in stack gas is in low levels of 0.006–0.011 μg·Nm−3, and less than 0.05% of total input of Tl is escaped into the ambient atmosphere. The majority of Tl (88.7%–97.4% of the total output) is detained by the ESP/ESP-FF fly ashes. Compared to the little amount (~4 kg·yr−1) of Tl that discharged into the atmosphere from Guizhuo’s CFPPs in 2017, more Tl (over 700 kg) ends up in the solid coal combustion products each year, which makes the need of careful disposal of this solid combustion waste to prevent the mobilization of Tl into the environment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicThallium and Germanium StudiesFrench-language works237,207