MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230768530 · doi:10.2172/908234

Fate of Mercury in Synthetic Gypsum Used for Wallboard Production

2006· report· en· W4230768530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Sanderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGypsumFlue-gas desulfurizationWaste managementRaw materialMercury (programming language)CoalEnvironmental scienceFlue gasEngineeringChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents and discusses results from Task 5 of the study ''Fate of Mercury in Synthetic Gypsum Used for Wallboard Production,'' performed at a full-scale commercial wallboard plant. Synthetic gypsum produced by wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems on coal-fired power plants is commonly used in the manufacture of wallboard. The FGD process is used to control the sulfur dioxide emissions which would result in acid rain if not controlled. This practice has long benefited the environment by recycling the FGD gypsum byproduct, which is becoming available in increasing quantities, decreasing the need to landfill this material, and increasing the sustainable design of the wallboard product. However, new concerns have arisen as recent mercury control strategies developed for power plants involve the capture of mercury in FGD systems. The objective of this study is to determine whether any mercury is released into the atmosphere when the synthetic gypsum material is used as a feedstock for wallboard production. The project is being co-funded by the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-04NT42080), USG Corporation, and EPRI. USG Corporation is the prime contractor, and URS Group is a subcontractor. The project scope includes five discrete tasks, each conducted at various USG wallboard plants using synthetic gypsum from different FGD systems. The five tasks were to include (1) a baseline test, then variations representing differing power plant (2) emissions control configurations, (3) treatment of fine gypsum particles, (4) coal types, and (5) FGD reagent types. However, Task 5, which was to evaluate gypsum produced from an alternate FGD reagent, could not be conducted as planned. Instead, Task 5 was conducted at conditions similar to a previous task, Task 3, although with gypsum from an alternate FGD system. In this project, process stacks in the wallboard plant have been sampled using the Ontario Hydro method. The stack locations sampled for each task include a dryer for the wet gypsum as it enters the plant and a gypsum calciner. The stack of the dryer for the wet wallboard product was also tested as part of this task, and was tested as part of Tasks 1 and 4. Also at each site, in-stream process samples were collected and analyzed for mercury concentration before and after each significant step in wallboard production. The Ontario Hydro results, process sample mercury concentration data, and process data were used to construct mercury mass balances across the wallboard plants. Task 5 was conducted at a wallboard plant processing synthetic gypsum from a power plant that fires Eastern bituminous coal. The power plant is equipped with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system for NOX emissions control, but the SCR was bypassed during the time period the gypsum tested was produced. The power plant has a single-loop, open spray tower, limestone reagent FGD system, with forced oxidation conducted in a reaction tank integral with the FGD absorber. The FGD system has gypsum fines blow down as part of the dewatering step. Gypsum fines blow down is believed to be an important variable that impacts the amount of mercury in the gypsum byproduct and possibly its stability during the wallboard process. The results of the Task 5 stack testing, as measured by the Ontario Hydro method, detected that an average of 51% of the incoming mercury in the FGD gypsum was emitted during wallboard production. These losses were distributed as 2% or less each across the wet gypsum dryer and product wallboard dryer, and about 50% across the gypsum calciner. Emissions were similar to what Task 3 results showed, on both a percentage and a mass basis, for gypsum produced by a power plant firing bituminous coal and also having gypsum fines blow down as part of the FGD dewatering scheme. As was seen in the Task 1 through 4 results, most of the mercury detected in the stack testing on the wet gypsum dryer and kettle calciner was in the form of elemental mercury. In the wallboard dryer kiln, a more significant percentage of the mercury detected was in the oxidized form, particularly from the stack near the product discharge end of the kiln. However, this represented a very small percentage of the overall mercury loss.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207