These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33915394)

  • 1. Exploring the trend of stream sulfate concentrations as U.S. power plants shift from coal to shale gas.
    Niu X; Wen T; Brantley SL
    Environ Pollut; 2021 Sep; 284():117102. PubMed ID: 33915394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of three recent coal-fired power plant closings on Pittsburgh air quality: A natural experiment.
    Russell MC; Belle JH; Liu Y
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2017 Jan; 67(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 27027572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Health and air quality benefits of policies to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions: a case study in North Carolina.
    Li YR; Gibson JM
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Sep; 48(17):10019-27. PubMed ID: 25046689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Air quality and health benefits from potential coal power plant closures in Texas.
    Strasert B; Teh SC; Cohan DS
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2019 Mar; 69(3):333-350. PubMed ID: 30339492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Implications of near-term coal power plant retirement for SO2 and NOX and life cycle GHG emissions.
    Venkatesh A; Jaramillo P; Griffin WM; Matthews HS
    Environ Sci Technol; 2012 Sep; 46(18):9838-45. PubMed ID: 22888978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Current Emissions and Future Mitigation Pathways of Coal-Fired Power Plants in China from 2010 to 2030.
    Tong D; Zhang Q; Liu F; Geng G; Zheng Y; Xue T; Hong C; Wu R; Qin Y; Zhao H; Yan L; He K
    Environ Sci Technol; 2018 Nov; 52(21):12905-12914. PubMed ID: 30249091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detecting the effects of coal mining, acid rain, and natural gas extraction in Appalachian basin streams in Pennsylvania (USA) through analysis of barium and sulfate concentrations.
    Niu X; Wendt A; Li Z; Agarwal A; Xue L; Gonzales M; Brantley SL
    Environ Geochem Health; 2018 Apr; 40(2):865-885. PubMed ID: 29027593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Benefits of current and future policies on emissions of China's coal-fired power sector indicated by continuous emission monitoring.
    Zhang Y; Bo X; Zhao Y; Nielsen CP
    Environ Pollut; 2019 Aug; 251():415-424. PubMed ID: 31103001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Investigation of aerosol and gas emissions from a coal-fired power plant under various operating conditions.
    Li Z; Wang Y; Lu Y; Biswas P
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2019 Jan; 69(1):34-46. PubMed ID: 30047848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ozone monitoring instrument observations of interannual increases in SO2 emissions from Indian coal-fired power plants during 2005-2012.
    Lu Z; Streets DG; de Foy B; Krotkov NA
    Environ Sci Technol; 2013 Dec; 47(24):13993-4000. PubMed ID: 24274462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bi-decadal trend of atmospheric emissions from thermal power plants in Mainland Southeast Asia: Implications on acid deposition and climate change Mitigation.
    Ha Chi NN; Kim Oanh NT; Winijkul E; Xue W; Nguyen LT
    J Environ Manage; 2023 Dec; 348():119252. PubMed ID: 37864944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influence of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) installations on emission characteristics of PM
    Li Z; Jiang J; Ma Z; Fajardo OA; Deng J; Duan L
    Environ Pollut; 2017 Nov; 230():655-662. PubMed ID: 28715770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Environmental implications of United States coal exports: a comparative life cycle assessment of future power system scenarios.
    Bohnengel B; Patiño-Echeverri D; Bergerson J
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Aug; 48(16):9908-16. PubMed ID: 25025127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reduction of atmospheric emissions due to switching from fuel oil to natural gas at a power plant in a critical area in Central Mexico.
    Sosa E R; Vega E; Wellens A; Jaimes M; Fuentes G G; Granados H E; Alarcón J AL; Torres B MDC; Sánchez A P; Rosas A S; Mateos D E
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2020 Oct; 70(10):1043-1059. PubMed ID: 32845797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A decision analysis model for reducing carbon emission from coal-fired power plants and its compensatory units.
    Kumari S; Bera S
    J Environ Manage; 2022 Jan; 301():113829. PubMed ID: 34592669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Control strategies of atmospheric mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in China.
    Tian H; Wang Y; Cheng K; Qu Y; Hao J; Xue Z; Chai F
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2012 May; 62(5):576-86. PubMed ID: 22696807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Recent increases in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from coal-fired electric generating units equipped with selective catalytic reduction.
    McNevin TF
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2016 Jan; 66(1):66-75. PubMed ID: 26563500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inequitable Exposures to U.S. Coal Power Plant-Related
    Henneman LRF; Rasel MM; Choirat C; Anenberg SC; Zigler C
    Environ Health Perspect; 2023 Mar; 131(3):37005. PubMed ID: 36884005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. North Carolina's Changing Energy Generation Profile and Reductions in Key Air Pollutants, 2000-2019.
    Wilkie AA; Richardson DB; Luben TJ; Serre ML; Woods CG; Daniels JL
    N C Med J; 2022; 83(4):304-310. PubMed ID: 35817451
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.