Hg data part of WoCQI coal analysis project Proximate, Ultimate Major and minor elements Se, Hg by CVAA, Precision ± 10%, d.l. 0.02 ppm Engineering parameters.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Cost estimate and control effective of multi-pollutant abatement from the power sector in the Yangtze River Delta region, China Jian Sun and Joshua S.
Advertisements

Mercury in coal from the People’s Republic of China H.E. Belkin, S.J. Tewalt U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA USA R.B.Finkelman (USGS retired) University.
Atmospheric Particulate Matter in Proximity to Mountaintop Coal Mines Allan Kolker 1, Mark A. Engle 1,2, William H. Orem 1, Calin A. Tatu 1, Michael Hendryx.
Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 in the Southeastern US Sangil Lee 1, Yongtao Hu 1, Michael Chang 2, Karsten Baumann 2, Armistead (Ted) Russell 1 1 School.
Projects to Help Implement The Monitoring Council’s Framework March 26, 2003.
Lunar Pyroclastic Eruptions COSMOCHEMISTRY iLLUSTRATED Apollo 17 Orange Glass Pyroclastic Deposit Six Major Dark Mantle DepositsTaurus-Littrow Deposit.
1 NWFP UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY. 2 OVERVIEW  Brief History  Academic Programs at Main Campus, Peshawar  Academic programs at Satellite.
DELTA: Geochem mode. Analysis results of mining activities
Welcome to ALS Minerals March ALS Group ALS has an enviable reputation for delivering a quality service which includes accurate and timely data,
QA/QC FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT
29 th International conference SEGH, 8-12 July Toulouse, FRANCE 2013 Health risk estimate for groundwater and soil contamination in the.
Diurnal cycle of fossil and non-fossil total carbon using 14 C analyses during CalNex P. Zotter 1, A.S.H. Prévôt 1, Y. Zhang 2, S. Szidat 2, X. Zhang 3,
WEST VIRGINIA MINE DRAINAGE TASK FORCE SYMPOSIUM
Our Work on Mercury Guizhou Research & Designing Institute of Environmental Science Qu Liya.
Geographic Variation of Mercury and Other Elements in U.S. Coal Jeffrey Quick 1, D. Tabet 1, S. Wakefield 1, R. Bon 1, T. Brill 2 ; 1 Utah Geological Survey,
Status of the WET Program William Telliard Director, Analytical Methods USEPA Office of Science & Technology Office of Water.
The Importance of Feasibility Studies for Project Financing FINEX 2012.
ILC DR RF Cavity – D. Li DR Workshop, KEK, Japan 1 Design for the DR RF cavities and impedance issues Derun Li Center for Beam Physics Lawrence Berkeley.
Successful In China Your Partner To ‘Go Out’. Well established Australian mining Company. Listed in Australia (ASX) and London (AIM). Been on the ground.
Xinbin Feng 1, Wei Zhu 1,2, Xuewu Fu 1, Hui Zhang 1,2 1.Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang , PR China 2. Graduate University.
Geographic Variation and Emission Potential of Mercury, Chlorine, and Sulfur in U.S. Coal. Prepared by: Utah Geological Survey Jeffrey C. Quick, David.
Geographic Variation of Mercury Content, and Mercury Emissions Predicted For Existing Technologies, by U.S. County of Coal Origin Authors: Jeffrey C Quick.
Accuracy Assessment of Sampling Designs for Surveying Heavy Metal Content in Soil Using SSSI Aihua Ma; Jinfeng Wang; Keli Zhang
PETLAB: a National Geoanalytical Database l content l accessibility l uranium l summary Nick Mortimer & Ben Morrison, GNS Dunedin.
Applying Ensemble Probabilistic Forecasts in Risk-Based Decision Making Hui-Ling Chang 1, Shu-Chih Yang 2, Huiling Yuan 3,4, Pay-Liam Lin 2, and Yu-Chieng.
The Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Collection.
Evaluation of emission inventory (EI) of air pollutants for Nanjing, China Y. ZHAO 1, L. Qiu 1, F. XIE 2, Q. ZHANG 3, Y. YU 4, C. NIELSEN 5, J. ZHANG 6.
Impact assessment of anthropogenic emission control upon aerosol mass burden during heavy pollution episodes over North China Plain Meigen Zhang, Xiao.
2. Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, NOAA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Why is Coal Ash of Concern and how to assess potential impacts?
Energy and the Environment, Nanotechnology Solutions Professor Peter Dobson Oxford University Strategic Advisor on Nanotechnology (RCUK)
Table 2. Results of the parameters of proximate, ultimate and petrographic analysis of coal samples Devidas S. Nimaje et al. Assessment of Fire Risk of.
1 The Importance of Employing Best Practices for Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Drainage and Use Southwest China Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Development Best Practices.
Jie WANG;Zuohua HUANG ;Bing LIU;Xibin WANG;
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Virginia Strati1,2, Scott A
Table 2. Statistics of listed coal company in Inner Mongolia
THE APPLICATION OF TRACKER WITH SA IN ALIGNMENT OF HIRFL-CSR
History of Economic Growth
Qi MIN 1 ;Yuanyuan DUAN 2 ;Xiaodong WANG 3 ;
M. Kanuchova1, M. Majoros2,J. Kanuch1,Y,Ding3, M. D. Sumption2, and E
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Revolutionizing heat transport enhancement with liquid metals: Proposal of a new industry of water-free heat exchangers Haiyan LI 1 ;Jing LIU 2 ; 1. Key.
New insights into the effect of Tris-HCl and Tris on corrosion of magnesium alloy in presence of bicarbonate, sulfate, hydrogen phosphate and dihydrogen.
TIAN Luoyang a, b ;CHEN Yali c ;WANG Qiang a, b ;
Zhang Xu,Li Dian-Zhong,Li Yi-Yi,Lu Shan-Ping
Revolutionizing heat transport enhancement with liquid metals: Proposal of a new industry of water-free heat exchangers Haiyan LI 1 ;Jing LIU 2 ; 1. Key.
Total Energy Consumed (%)
Modeling of solids segregation in circulating fluidized bed boilers
Hawkings et al. The effect of warming climate on nutrient and solute export from the Greenland Ice Sheet Figure S-4 Comparison of regression plots for.
Trace Elements in Dan River Sediment after the 2014 Coal Ash Spill Ricardo P. Fernandez, Caleb Shockley, and Madeline E. Schreiber Department of.
فراگیری تکنولوژی در ایران : درس هائی از خاور دور
Reducing Mercury Emission from Coal Combustion
Comparison (θ) of the mean dinucleotide variability distribution for (A) genes with MAE vs. Comparison (θ) of the mean dinucleotide variability distribution.
Comparison (R) of the mean observed to expected dinucleotide distribution for (A) genes with MAE vs. Comparison (R) of the mean observed to expected dinucleotide.
University of Notre Dame
Zhong-Mei Huang1, Wei-Qi Huang2
Table 6. Control sample industry distribution
Day 8 Ionic Bonds ct’d Science 10.
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
EAST MDSplus Log Data Management System
Table 3. Main properties of the thin brass electrode
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
EAST MDSplus Log Data Management System
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Table 5. Water quality A3 well during pumping test
Moisture content (wt. %)
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Presentation transcript:

Hg data part of WoCQI coal analysis project Proximate, Ultimate Major and minor elements Se, Hg by CVAA, Precision ± 10%, d.l ppm Engineering parameters Strategy of Sampling Identify and collect samples from the largest mines 328 Samples of coal used for electric power production and industrial facilities. 305 are run-of-mine samples. Mean = 0.15; Min. 0.02; Max Hg data for China coals Collaboration between USGS & State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang

Censored data* <0.02 ppm -A small percentage- Replacement factor = 0.55 [ = ppm] *Sanford, R.F., Pierson, C.T., and Crovelli, R.A., An objective replacement method for censored geochemical data., Mathematical Geology, vol. 25, Chlorine data All 305 samples by ion electrode (d.l. 150 ppm) 40 samples re-done using direct combustion Cl analyzer (d.l ppm) China Coal Samples

Guizhou Province Commercial vs. Mineralized Coal

Comparison with Other Studies This Study n = 305 Mean = 0.15 ppmThis Study n = 305 Mean = 0.15 ppm Wang et al. n = 234 Mean = 0.22 ppm Huang & Yang n = 1466 Mean = 0.15 ppm Zhang et al. n = 990 Mean = 0.16 ppm USGS COALQUAL (in ground U.S. coals) Mean = 0.17 ppm EPA ICR (delivered U.S. coals) Mean = 0.10 ppm