Cited by 261CO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesWaste Management and Environmental Impact

Direct mineral carbonation of coal fly ash for CO 2 sequestration

Tamilselvi Dananjayan, Rushendra Revathy, Kandasamy, Palanivelu, Andimuthu, Ramachandran·2016·Journal of Cleaner Production

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.145

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tamilselvi Dananjayan, R. R., Kandasamy, P., & Andimuthu, R.
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
112
Pages
4173-4182
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W967863054
Cited by
261
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
Funders
“Department of Science and Technology” (DST), New Delhi, India (DST/IS-STAC/CO2-SR-56/09)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Waste Management and Environmental Impact
Keywords
coal fly ash, CO2 sequestration, carbon capture and storage, wet carbonation, process parameters, waste utilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review