MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406398713 · doi:10.3390/atmos16010087

Electrostatic Particle Ionization for Reduction in Livestock and Potash Dust

2025· article· en· W4406398713 on OpenAlexafffund
Myra Martel, Matthew H. Taylor, Shelley Kirychuk, Kwangseok Choi, Huiqing Guo, Lifeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsPotashParticle (ecology)IonizationEnvironmental scienceLivestockAtmospheric sciencesReduction (mathematics)Materials sciencePotassiumPhysicsMetallurgyGeographyIonGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne dust is an important contaminant affecting the health and the environment, and a crucial concern in many workplaces such as animal facilities and potash mines. One of the techniques used for dust control is electrostatic particle ionization (EPI). This technology has been proven effective in reducing airborne dust; however, it has downsides, such as the generation of ozone and corrosion of electrodes. Thus, this study tested a corrosion-resistant carbon-fiber discharge electrode and compared it with electrodes commonly used in EPI systems, that is, stainless-steel and tungsten electrodes, in terms of collection efficiency for potash dust and wheat flour (representative of livestock dust), ozone production, and power consumption. The carbon-fiber electrode performed comparably to stainless-steel electrodes, particularly for potash dust, and performed better than the tungsten electrode in terms of dust collection efficiency. Moreover, it had the lowest energy consumption and generated the least amount of ozone. However, because of the limitations of this study (e.g., fewer samples, low air velocity, controlled conditions, and the use of wheat flour instead of livestock dust), tests under real barn or mining conditions are necessary to confirm the results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207