4.7 Article

Evaluation of trace elements in US coals using the USGS COALQUAL database version 3.0. Part II: Non-REY critical elements

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 39-50

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2018.04.005

关键词

Coal quality; COALQUAL database; Critical elements; Trace elements; US coals

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coal is a potential source of some valuable elements. In this work, concentrations of 25 critical elements in U.S. coals were evaluated using the COALQUAL Database Version 3.0 aiming to identify best coal sources for potential recovery of critical element. A method was proposed to calculate the mean concentrations of critical elements in U.S. coals, including Li (11.5 ppm), Be (1.9 ppm), Ti (721 ppm), V (21.6 ppm), Mn (50.8 ppm), Co (4.5 ppm), Ga (5.1 ppm), Ge (7.2p pm), Se (2.4 ppm), Zr (30.4 ppm), Nb (3.3 ppm), Sn (1.8 ppm), Sb (1.0 ppm), Ba (266 ppm), Hf (0.77 ppm), and Ta (0.19 ppm).Based on the calculated mean concentrations, a rough estimate indicates that U.S. coals contain a large amount of critical elements that are enough to meet U.S. demands for many years to come, if these elements can be commercially extracted. By comparing with the suggested cut-off grades, we found that 5.8% of the coal samples have Ga concentrations higher than the suggested cut-off grade. The percentages of promising coal samples (higher than cut-off grades) of other elements are below 3%. Results further indicate that despite some variations among elements, bituminous coals from the Appalachian region are likely to have high concentrations of Li, Ga, Be, Se, and Sb which make them a potential source of these critical elements. Bituminous coals from the Interior Coal Province, both Eastern and Western, were found to have relatively high probabilities of having high Ge concentrations. Very limited coal samples were found from mixed regions to have V and Zr concentrations higher than the corresponding suggested cut-off grades.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据