MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414139992 · doi:10.1029/2025gl117794

Increasing Contribution of Condensable Particulate Matter From Stationary Combustion Sources Under Strict Control Standards in China

2025· article· en· W4414139992 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Su, Yuanzheng Chen, Wang Hm, Di Wu, Peng Xu, Xiwen Song, Tonghao Liu, Runlong Cai, Dongbin Wang, Jingkun Jiang, Jianmin Chen, Qing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsParticulatesCombustionEmission standardAir pollutionMajor stationary sourceCoal combustion productsPollutionEmission inventory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract China's implementation of stringent emission control measures during 2014–2020 has effectively reduced filterable particulate matter (FPM) emissions from stationary combustion sources, while increasing the contribution of condensable particulate matter (CPM) to total PM emissions. However, the lack of CPM emission inventories hinders the assessment of atmospheric impacts. This study developed a CPM emission inventory for China using field measurements from 148 typical industrial plants/processes. CPM's contribution to total PM emissions from stationary combustion sources had surged from 48.5% to 59.9% during 2014–2020, and will reach approximately 76% by 2030 under current emission control strategies in China. Furthermore, CPM constituted 14.5 ± 8.5% of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations during January 2019 in China. Within this CPM contribution, 21.8% was contributed by sulfate/ammonium from coal combustion and ammonia slip in air pollution control devices. These findings call for establishing CPM‐specific emission standards and curbing ammonia slip for further improvements in air quality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→