MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233267971 · doi:10.5194/amt-2020-455

A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseousmercury in ambient air

2020· preprint· en· W4233267971 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Attilio Naccarato, Antonella Tassone, Maria Teresa Di Martino, Sacha Moretti, Antonella Macagnano, Emiliano Zampetti, Paolo Papa, Joshua Avossa, Nicola Pirrone, Michelle Nerentorp, John Munthe, Ingvar Wängberg, Geoff W. Stupple, Carl P. J. Mitchell, Adam R. Martin, A. Steffen, Diana Babi, Eric M. Prestbo, Francesca Sprovieri, Frank Wania

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEuropean Metrology Programme for Innovation and ResearchHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeMinistère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des ParcsEuropean Association of National Metrology InstitutesIVL Svenska MiljöinstitutetEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMinistry of EnvironmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsMercury (programming language)SorbentEnvironmental scienceElemental mercuryAir monitoringEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyChemistryEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceFlue gasAdsorptionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Passive air samplers (PASs), providing time-averaged concentration of gaseous mercury over the time scale of weeks to months, are promising to fill a gap in the monitoring of atmospheric mercury worldwide. Their usefulness will depend on their ease-of-use and robustness under field conditions, their availability and affordability, and most notably, their ability to provide results of acceptable precision and accuracy. Here we describe a comparative evaluation of three PASs with respect to their ability to record precisely and accurately atmospheric background concentrations at sites in both southern Italy and southern Ontario. The study includes the CNR-PAS with gold nanoparticles as a sorbent, developed by the Italian National Research Council, the IVL-PAS using an activated carbon-coated disk, developed by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, and the MerPAS® using a sulfur-impregnated activated carbon sorbent, developed at the University of Toronto and commercialized by Tekran. Detection limits are deduced from the variability in the amount of mercury quantified in more than 20 field blank samples for each PAS. Analytical and sampling precision is quantified through 22 triplicated deployments for each PAS ranging in length from two to twelve weeks. Accuracy and bias are assessed through comparison with gaseous elemental mercury concentrations recorded by Tekran 2537 automated mercury analyzers operating alongside the PASs at both locations. The performance of the PASs was significantly better in Italy, with all of them providing concentrations that are not statistically significantly different from the average of the active sampling results. In Canada, where weather conditions were much harsher and more variable during the February through April deployment period, differences were observed amongst PASs. At both sites, the MerPAS® is currently the most sensitive, precise and accurate among the three PASs. A key reason for this is the larger size and the radial configuration of the MerPAS®, which results in blank levels that are lower relative to the sequestered amounts of mercury than in the other two PASs, which rely on axial diffusion geometries. Because the blank-correction becomes relatively smaller with longer deployment, sampler performance tends to be better during deployments of 8 and 12 weeks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→