AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
A Report by
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
to Division of Process Control Engineering
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Contract No. PH-86-67-139
-------
AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
A Report by
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
to Division of Process Control Engineering
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Contract No. PH-86-67-139
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Background 1
B. Objective 2
C. Approach 3
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
A. Phase I Evaluations 5
B. Phase II Evaluations 6
C. Phase III Evaluations 6
III. PHASE I EVALUATIONS 9
A. Test Procedure 9
B. Summary of Results 17
IV. PHASE II EVALUATIONS 35
A. Test Facility 35
B. Concentrating Table 35
1. Description and Theory of Operation 35
2. Test Procedure 42
3. Summary of 'Results 58
C. Compound Water Cyclone 69
1. Description and Theory of Operation 69
2. Test Setup and Procedure 75
3. Summary of Results 82
D. Concentrating Spiral 86
1. Description and Theory of Operation 86
2. Test Setup and Procedure 93
3. Summary of Results 93
V. PHASE III EVALUATIONS 101
A. Test Procedure 101
B. Summary of Results 101
Appendix A, Phase I Evaluations - Float-sink Tests at
1.60 Specific Gravity at 30 Mesh x 0 Size and p.c.
Grind A-111
Appendix B, Phase II Evaluations - Concentrating
Table Tests B-181
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Appendix C, Phase II Evaluations - Compound Water
Cyclone Tests ...................................... C-201
Appendix D, Phase II Evaluations - Spiral
Concentrator Tests ................................. D-231
Appendix E, Phase III Evaluations - Air
Classification Tests ...............................
Appendix F, BCR Standard Methods ..................... F-257
Appendix G, Chemical Analysis of Coal and Coal Refuse
Materials .......................................... G-265
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Flow Sheet for Theoretical Evaluation from Three Drum
Samples 11
2 Centrifuge Utilized to Effect the Separation in the
Float-sink Test 13
3 General View of Float-sink Laboratory Ik
4 Pyritic Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal 25
5 Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal 26
6 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Ohio No. 6-A Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
(BCR 1735) 27
7 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Lower Kittanning and Lower Freeport
Seam, Cambria County, Pennsylvania (BCR 17^7) 28
8 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Ohio No. 8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
(BCR 1768) 29
9 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Illinois No. 5 Seam, Franklin County,
Illinois (BCR 1795) 30
10 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County,
Pennsylvania (BCR 1827) 31
11 Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize
of Coal for Pittsburgh Seam, Marion County, W. Va.,
BCR Lot No. 1725 (CT-1) 32
12 Schematic Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests
with 3/8 Inch x 0 Raw Coal 37
13 Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests with
30 Mesh x 0 Raw Coal 39
Ih Sampling Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests ^3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
15 Automatic Electro-pneumatic Sampling Device
16 Operation Control Panel and Product Sampling for
Concentrating Table Cleaning Systems
17 Sump Pump Used for General Clean-up of Wet
Preparation Area .................................... k6
18 Denver Pressure Filter for Dewatering Samples ......... kj
19 Jeffrey Hammer Mill ................................... k$
20 Denver Jaw Crusher and Pulva-sizer Hammer Mill ........ 50
21 Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Single-stage
Cleaning on Two-study Coals ......................... 6?
22 Comparison "between Single-stage and Two-stage Cleaning
on No. 6- A Seam at Nominal Topsize of Coal,
Concentrating Table Tests ........................... 68
23 Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning ............................................ 70
24 Concentrating Table Tests - Comparison between 1.60
Theoretical Cleaning and Two-stage Concentrating
Table Cleaning at 30 Mesh x 0 Size .................. 71
25 Compound Water Cyclone ................................ 73
26 Slurry Feed Mixing Cone for Compound Water Cyclone and
Spiral Concentrator ................................. 76
27 Original Mixing Circuit for Compound Water Cyclone
Tests ............................................... 77
28 Final Mixing Circuit for Compound Water Cyclone
Tests ............................................... 78
29 Compound Water Cyclone with Sampling Chutes in the
Foreground .......................................... 79
30 View of the Complete Compound Water Cyclone Circuit
with Concentrating Spirals in the Background ........ 80
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
31 Sampling Flow Sheet for Compound Water Cyclone
Tests 81
32 Compound Water Cyclone Tests - Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning Run No. 1 Operating Conditions 88
33 Compound Water Cyclone Tests - Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning Run No. 2 Operating Conditions 90
3^ Action and Position of Products in the Spiral
Concentrator 91
35 View of Concentrating Spiral Pumping System 9^
36 Flow Sheet for Spiral Concentrator Tests 95
37 Spiral Concentrator Tests - Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning 99
38 View of BCR-Majac Air Classification 102
39 Front View of Alpine Zigzag Air Classifier 103
hO Side View of Alpine Zigzag Air Classifier 10k
hi Results of BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests 10?
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Text Page
1 Percent Ash in 1.6o Float Material of Run-of-Mine Coal
Crushed to Various Sizes, Showing the Effect of
Agglomeration in the Float-sink Process as Related
to Size .............................................. 15
2 Sample Copy of Phase I Data Sheet ...................... l6
3 Required Pulverized Coal Fineness — Percent Through
No. 200 Sieve ........................................ 17
h Pyritic Sulfur Reduction at 1.6o Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal ................... 18
5 Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal ................... 22
6 Analyses of Coals Selected for Concentrating Table
Tests ................................................ U8
7 Screen Analyses of R.O.M. 3/8 Inch x 0 Feed to
Concentrating Table .................................. 52
8 Screen Analyses of 30 Mesh x 0 Feed to Concentrating
Table ................................................ 5^
9 Zones and Fractions Utilized to Obtain Composites of
Table Tests .......................................... 56
10 Sample Copy of Concentrating Table Data Sheet for
3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning Run ...................... 57
11 Sample Copy of Concentrating Table Data Sheet for
30 Mesh x 0 Cleaning Run ............................. 59
12 Sample Copy of Concentrating Table Data Sheet Showing
the Effects of Two-stage Cleaning .................... 60
13 Concentrating Table Tests — Effects of Single-stage
Cleaning on Two Coals ................................ 62
Ik Concentrating Table Tests — Chemical Analyses
Comparison Between 1.6o Theoretical Cleaning and
Concentrating ........................................ 63
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Text
15 Concentrating Table Tests — Comparison Between
Single-stage and Two-stage Cleaning on Ohio
No. 6-A Seam 6k
l6 Concentrating Table Tests — Comparison Between 1.6o
Theoretical Cleaning and Two-stage Concentrating
Table Cleaning at 30 Mesh x 0 Size 65
17 Concentrating Table Tests — Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning 66
18 List of Concentrating Table Runs 72
19 Sample Copy of Data Sheet for Compound Water Cyclone
Test 83
20 Sample Copy of Data Sheet Showing Effects of Two-stage
Cleaning with the Concentrating Table and Compound
Water Cyclone 8U
21 Compound Water Cyclone Tests — Single-stage Cleaning.. 85
22 Comparison of Concentrating Table Run and Compound
Water Cyclone Run with 30 Mesh x 0, R.O.M., Ohio
No. 6-A Seam 82
23 Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests -
Effects of Two-stage Cleaning Run No. 1 Operating
Conditions 87
2^ Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests -
Effects of Two-stage Cleaning Run No. 2 Operating
Conditions 89
25 Sample Copy of Spiral Concentrator Test Data Sheet 97
26 Concentrating Table and Spiral Concentrator Tests -
Effects of Two-stage Cleaning 98
27 Total Sulfur Reduction in Majac Air Classification
Tests 105
28 Pyritic Sulfur Reduction in Majac Air Classification
Tests 106
29 Sulfur Reduction in Alpine Zigzag Classifier Tests 109
-------
Table
A- 1
A- 2
A- 3
A- U
A- 5
A- 6
A- 7
A- 8
A- 9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-ll*
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
LIST OF
Seam
Pittsburgh
No. 9
No. 6, 7, 8
No. 6
No. 8
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 5-A
No. U
No. 6
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Freeport
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Freeport
No. 8
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Marion
Morgan
Athens
Perry
Belmont
Harrison
Harrison
Jefferson
Mahoning
Columbian a
Cambria
Cambria
Indiana
Cambria
Westmoreland
Indiana
Somerset
Indiana
Indiana
Grant
Harrison
- XX -
State
West Virginia
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Ohio
Page
A-lll
A-112
A-113
A-114
A-115
A-116
A-117
A-118
A-119
A-120
A-121
A-122
A-123
A-12U
A-125
A-126
A-127
A-128
A-129
A-130
A-131
-------
Table
A- 22
A-23
A- 2k
A- 25
A- 26
A- 2?
A-28
A- 29
A- 30
A- 31
A- 32
A- 33
A-3k
A- 35
A- 36
A- 37
A- 38
A- 39
A-kO
A-Ul
A-J+2
A- U3
LIST OF
Seam
Freeport
Bakerstown
No. 8
Wo. 9
No. 6
No. 8
Thick Freeport
Lower Freeport
Upper Freeport
Double Freeport
No. 5
No. 5
No. 2
No. 5
No. 5
No. 6
No. 6
No. 5
No. 6
No. 5
No. 6
No. 6
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Preston
Grant
Jefferson
Belmont
Coshocton
Jefferson
Allegheny
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
Sullivan
Lawrence
Peoria
Knox
Fulton
Montgomery
Jefferson
Perry
Jefferson
Franklin
Williamson
Franklin
- xii -
State
West Virginia
West Virginia
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Ohio
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Page
A-132
A-133
A-131^
A-135
A-136
A-137
A-138
A-139
A-lUo
A-lUl
A-1U2
A-1U3
A-lM*
A-1U5
A-lk6
A-lkj
A-ll*8
A-1^9
A-150
A-151
A-152
A-153
-------
Table
A-l*
A- 14-5
A-U6
A-U?
A-lf8
A-U9
A- 50
A- 51
A-52
A-53
A- 5^
A-55
A- 56
A- 57
A- 58
A- 59
A- 60
A- 61
A- 62
A- 63
A-64
A- 65
LIST OF
Seam
No. 2
No. 5
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
No. 7-A
No. 6
No. 6
Lower Kittanning
Kittanning
Lower Freeport
Lower Freeport
Upper Freeport
Lower Kittanning
Upper Freeport
Upper Clarion
No. k- A
No. 7-A
Upper Freeport
No. 5
Upper Kittanning
Upper Freeport
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Fulton
Saline
Saline
Hopkins
Columbiana
Jefferson
Tuscarawas
Tuscarawas
Indiana
Armstrong
Clearfield
Indiana
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
Clarion
Jackson
Guernsey
Clearfield
Muskingum
Cambria
Cambria
- xiii -
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Kentucky
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Page
A-15^
A-155
A-156
A-157
A-158
A-159
A-160
A-161
A-162
A-163
A-164
A-165
A-166
A-167
A-168
A-169
A-170
A-171
A-172
A-173
A-171*
A-175
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
Table
A-66
A- 6?
A-68
A- 69
A- 70
B- 1
B- 2
B- 3
B- h
B- 5
B- 6
B- 7
B- 8
B- 9
B-10
B-ll
B-12
B-13
B-l4
B-15
B-16
Seam
No. 6
Middle Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Middle Kittanning
Lower Clarion
Lower Freeport
Lower Freeport
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
No. 8
No. 8
No. 8
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
County
Muskingum
Clearfield
Indiana
Clarion
Clarion
Armstrong
Armstrong
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
- xiv -
State
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Page
A-176
A-177
A-178
A-179
A-180
B-181
B-182
B-183
B-184
B-185
B-186
B-187
B-188
B-189
B-190
B-191
B-192
B-193
B-191*
B-195
B-196
-------
Table
B-l?
B-18
B-19
C- 1
C- 2
C- 3
c- h
C- 5
C- 6
C- 7
C- 8
C- 9
C-10
C-ll
C-12
C-13
C-ll*
C-15
C-16
C-17
C-18
C-19
LIST OF
Seam
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
No. 6-A
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
- XV -
State
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Page
B-197
B-198
B-199
C-201
C-202
C-203
C-20U
C-205
C-206
C-207
C-208
C-209
C-210
C-211
C-212
C-213
C-21U
C-215
C-216
C-217
C-218
C-219
-------
Table
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-2k
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
D- 1
D- 2
D- 3
D- 1*
D- 5
D- 6
D- 7
D- 8
D- 9
D-10
D-ll
LIST OF
Seam
No. 6
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
No. 8
No. 8
No. 8
No. 8
No. 8
No. 6-A
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
No. 8
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Columbiana
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Harrison
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Jefferson
- xvi -
State
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Page
C-220
C-221
C-222
C-223
C-224
C-225
C-226
C-227
C-228
C-229
C-230
D-231
D-232
D-233
D-234
D-235
D-236
D-237
D-238
D-239
D-2iK)
D-2^1
-------
Table
D-12
D-13
E- 1
E- 2
E- 3
E- k
E- 5
E- 6
E- 7
E- 8
E- 9
E-10
E-ll
E-12
LIST OF
Seam
Wo. 8
No. 8
No. 6
No. 8
No. 6- A
No. 6
Lower Kitt arming
Lower Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Kittanning
Upper Kittanning
Freeport
Thick Freeport
Lower Freeport
No. 8
TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
County
Jefferson
Jefferson
Perry
Belmont
Harrison
Columbiana
Cambria
Westmoreland
Somerset
Somerset
Grant
Allegheny
Armstrong
Belmont
State
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Page
D-2te
D-2^3
E-2U5
E-2^6
E-24?
E-2^8
E-2l*9
E-250
E-251
E-252
E-253
E-25U
E-255
E-256
-------
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INC.
SPONSORED RESEARCH PROGRAM
AN EVALUATION OF COAL CLEANING PROCESSES AND
TECHNIQUES FOR REMOVING PYRITIC SULFUR
FROM FINE COAL
Interim Report
(BCR Report L-339)
September, 1969
I. Introduction
A. Background
During the combustion of fossil fuels, sulfur oxide compounds are
formed and released to the atmosphere. If it were feasible to physically
remove pyrite from coal in significant quantities, the amount of sulfur
oxide produced from coal firing could be reduced.
Late in 196^ Paul Weir Company undertook an investigation on the
feasibility of reducing the sulfur content of coals by generally known
coal preparation methods. The work, sponsored by NAPCA, was accom-
plished under contract No. PH 86-65-29 and the final report was submitted
in October 1965. A supplemental study was also undertaken by the Paul
Weir Company on the feasibility of recovering sulfur and iron from coal
pyrites. The supplemental report was submitted to NAPCA in May 1966.
The reports were encouraging and assisted in outlining areas where
additional data or evaluation was required.
One area where little information existed was on the washability
of coals that were mined primarily for use in power generation. To
eliminate this deficiency, contracts were awarded to the United States
Bureau of Mines, the Illinois Geological Survey, and Commercial Testing
and Engineering Company to develop washability data on these seams.
The washability studies were rather unique in that they were to
develop information on pyrite liberation at various stages of crushing
and grinding rather than developing washability data on the various
sized fractions as mined so that the proper sized splits could be made
and the proper cleaning equipment and separating gravity selected.
BCR's interest in sulfur reduction in steam coals by coal cleaning
dates back to 1956, when a study was undertaken at the request of the
informal Working Committee on Air Pollution Subjects of Interest to
Electric Utility and Coal Industries. This study was summarized in a
-------
2.
and entitled "Coal Cleaning in Relation to Sulfur Reduction in Steam
Coal." (ASME paper No. 58A1V7).
Subsequent work led to the BCR concept of pyrite removal at the
utility pulverizer. Details of this work are contained in a paper pre-
pared by R. A. Glenn and R. D. Harris, entitled, "Liberation of Pyrite
from Steam Coals" and presented at the 5^th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, New York, New York, June 11-15, 196l.
Late in 1966 BCR was requested to submit to NAPCA a special report
containing information on the Lower Kittanning seam, the report to
contain the available data necessary to make an economic evaluation of
the production of sulfuric acid from pyrite in raw coal. This confi-
dential report was made possible through the cooperation of the Barnes
and Tucker Company, the North American Coal Corporation, and the
Pennsylvania Electric Company. The latter company is the owner-operator
of the Seward Power Station where Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., was
undertaking a research program on the BCR conceptual process of coal
beneficiation by pulverization, air classification, and cleaning under
co-sponsorship with twelve Eastern utilities.
Because of this common interest in pyrite removal as a means of
desulfurization, BCR was requested to submit a cooperative research
proposal to NAPCA to evaluate the deep cleaning of pyrite from utility
coals.
On June 1, 1967, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., was awarded a
contract, No. PH 86-67-139, to develop additional data on the first 30
coals processed by Commercial Testing and Engineering Company, under
their contract with NAPCA.
B. Objective
The objective of the work undertaken by Bituminous Coal Research,
Inc., was twofold; first, to extend the washability data to finer sizes
of coal, and second, to evaluate coal cleaning methods and techniques
for removing pyritic sulfur from the fine-sized coal. Prom BCR's pre-
vious work with pyrite removal from finely sized coal, two size consists
were of interest in the washability studies.
The first was the 30 mesh x 0 size as this was the lower limit in
sizing that would contain a size range of pyrite typical of a utility
pulverizer's recycle load. It is this recycle material that can pos-
sibly be removed from the utility pulverizer, wet-cleaned to remove the
pyrite, and the clean dewatered coal reinjected into the feed to the
pulverizer without thermal drying.
The second size range of interest was each coal's "as fired," or
p.c. grind. It is at this stage of pulverization that maximum pyrite
-------
3.
concerned. Therefore, it is obvious that the maximum degree of potential
pyrite removal has also been reached with each coal's p.c. grind.
The evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques has to date
been limited to studies involving the coarser, or 30 mesh x 0, grind.
C. Approach
The work was divided into three phases. Phase I was a comprehensive
evaluation of the pyrite liberation and removal characteristics of U.S.
utility coals when pulverized to the two fine grinds of interest
(30 mesh x 0 and each coal's pulverized coal grind). All samples were
subjected to float-sink separation at a 1.60 specific gravity to produce
a reduced sulfur clean coal fraction and a sulfur-enriched refuse. The
degree of both total sulfur and pyritic sulfur reduction obtained was
calculated from the chemical analysis of (l) the R.O.M. coal and (2) the
clean coal product produced from the float-sink process.
Seventy coals were subjected to Phase I evaluations utilizing a
portion of the samples obtained by Commercial Testing and Engineering
Company (CTECO) for their washability studies at topsizes of 1-1/2 inch,
3/8 inch, and lU mesh.
Phase II of the program consisted of a performance evaluation of
three existing coal cleaning or mineral preparation devices. Six coals
were selected on the basis of Phase I evaluations. Tests were conducted
on large lots of coal obtained at the mine by BCR personnel. Test
evaluations were made on separations obtained with feed rates between
0.5 and 1.25 ton per hour using the 30 mesh x 0 size coal. Total sulfur
and pyritic sulfur reductions were again utilized to measure the degree
of success. The concentrating table, the concentrating spiral, and the
compound water cyclone were the three commercially available units tested
in Phase II.
Phase III of the program, utilizing the coal samples supplied by
CTECO, was a selective evaluation of 10 of the coals tested under Phase I
to determine their suitability for pyrite reduction by the BCR conceptual
process of pyrite removal at the utility pulverizer. A combination of
air classification and float-sink separation at a specific gravity of
1.60 was utilized to construct the potential composition of the feed to
the utility burners.
The air classification was utilized to effect a coarse-fine
separation with the coarse fraction being pyrite-enriched. The entire
quantity of fine coal combined with the 1.60 specific gravity float
material from the coarse fraction constituted the clean coal or potential
burner feed. Total sulfur and pyrite sulfur reductions were again
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Phase I Evaluations
During evaluation of the pyrite liberation and removal charac-
teristics of seventy different utility coals when pulverized to a
topsize of 30 mesh and to the coal's p.c. grind, an extensive quantity
of information has "been generated. Certain evaluations have been made
in this report which may appear to some users of this report to be too
general in nature. Since all of the information generated by BCR on
the Phase I evaluations is attached to this report as Appendix A, each
individual reader can make his own evaluation in any specific area of
interest.
The seventy coals tested came from three geographical areas:
Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and Illinois. Maximum pyritic
sulfur reduction obtained at the 30 mesh x 0 size was 93-7 percent
with an Ohio No. 6 coal; the minimum pyritic sulfur reduction obtained
was 51.2 percent with an Illinois No. 6 coal. At the p.c. grind,
95-0 percent of the pyritic sulfur was removable from a Pennsylvania
Lower Freeport coal while the minimum percentage of pyritic sulfur
removal was 5^.5 percent with a Pennsylvania Middle Kittanning coal
which had a very low R.O.M. pyritic sulfur content. Total sulfur
reductions covered a much wider range since the percentage of organic
sulfur, which was not removable, quite significantly affected the percent
reduction. This leads to several conclusions and recommendations for
future work.
If pyrite removal is to stand on its own merit as a method of
reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, a high percentage of total sulfur
reduction must be obtained at the selected size for processing. If
limestone or dolomite injection is to be considered as a supplement
to the removal of pyrite from the coal, the percentage of pyritic
sulfur reduction must be fairly high and the effect of a high organic
sulfur content on poor total sulfur reduction becomes less significant.
Consideration should be given to evaluating the pyrite liberation
characteristics of more Western Kentucky and Illinois coals having
moderately high organic sulfur contents.
Single gravity separations on the 30 mesh x 0 and the p.c. grinds
should be expanded for some coals to include separations at two higher
gravities. An evaluation of the potential trade off between increased
coal yield and sulfur reduction would then be possible for the fine
sizes.
The data sheets for the Phase I evaluations are contained in
-------
6.
B. Phase II Evaluations
The results of the coal cleaning tests with the concentrating
table were, in general, excellent. The total sulfur content of the clean
coal obtained from the table tests with the three Pennsylvania coals
and one of the Ohio coals correlated very well with the Phase I float-
sink test results. A significant lack of correlation in the Phase I
and Phase II results was noted in the chemical composition of the 1.60
float fraction of two additional Ohio coals.
Additional coals should be tested on the concentrating table and
Phase I evaluations should be made on each lot processed. This would
either eliminate the discrepancies between the Phase I arid Phase II
results or indicate that more detailed studies should be made on the
composition of the clean coal obtained in the Phase II studies, which
we have assumed could contain no misplaced sink material.
The results obtained with the compound water cyclone and concen-
trating spiral were not encouraging when judged purely on the separa-
tions obtained. While the concentrating table did an excellent job of
removing the additional pyrite liberated when the precleaned coal was
pulverized from a 3/8 inch topsize to a 30 mesh topsize, these two
units did little in further reducing the sulfur content in the 30 mesh
coal.
It is our opinion that the pyrite was much finer than the coal,
relatively speaking, thus making separation in the cyclone impossible.
A possible alternate to the present compound water cyclone test pro-
cedure would be to separate the feed into two size fractions, using
a rapped sieve bend with a 200 mesh aperture, and processing each
fraction independently in the compound water cyclone.
The extremely small percentage of pyrite being removed in the
second stage of the two-stage cleaning technique hurts the performance
of the concentrating spiral. Improvements in its operation could
probably be made, but a new test procedure would have to be developed.
Concentrating table test data can be found in Appendix B,
Tables B-l to B-19; compound water cyclone test data in Appendix C,
Tables C-l to C-30; and concentrating spiral test data in Appendix D,
Tables D-l to D-13.
C. Phase III Evaluations
A wide range in sulfur reduction was obtained in the Majac air
classification tests. This was expected, since the coals were not
selected on their predicted ease of separation. Additional tests of this
type are not recommended at this time. Total sulfur reductions of
-------
7.
coal is low. If this should prove to be the case, numerous additional
Phase III evaluations should be made.
The test data for the Phase III evaluations appear in Appendix E,
-------
III. PHASE I EVALUATIONS
A. Test Procedure
Representative samples of each of the 70 utility coals were supplied
to Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., by Commercial Testing and Engineering
Company of Chicago, Illinois. Each sample consisted of three drums of
coal split-out from the quantities obtained by Commercial Testing for
their washability studies at topsizes of 1-1/2 inches, 3/8 inches, and
lU mesh. Initially, as shown in Figure 1, each three-drum sample was
crushed to minus 1/4 inch with two drums of coal being retained for
possible use in the Phase III evaluations. The third drum was system-
atically reduced in quantity and in size until three 8-ounce samples of
minus 20 mesh coal remained for further test work. One 8-ounce fraction
was utilized to obtain proximate analysis, forms of sulfur, and Btu of
the "as-received," or R.O.M. coal.
The second 8-ounce sample of coal was pulverized and stage-ground
until the entire quantity was minus 30 mesh in size. The sample was
then subjected to float-sink analysis at 1.60 specific gravity.
Tetrachloroethylene, with a specific gravity of 1.62, diluted to 1.60
with methanol, was used as the media solution. An International
centrifuge, Size 2 Model V, was utilized to effect the separation. The
centrifuge is shown in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows a general view
of the float-sink laboratory. The 1.60 float and 1.60 sink fractions
were analyzed for moisture, ash, and total sulfur.
The initial chemical data received on the float-sink fractions of
both the 30 mesh and 200 mesh tests made us suspicious that the
generally-accepted standard technique for conducting float-sink tests
on fine-sized coal with a centrifuge was not yielding reliable data.
Chemical data on subsequent tests, together with Commercial Testing's
float-sink and chemical data on the coarser sizes of the same coals,
confirmed our suspicions.
The trend that we were establishing in our float-sink tests indi-
cated that the finer a coal was ground the less cleanable it became.
This, of course, is impossible; and an investigation was initiated to
identify the problem and determine what corrective measures had to be
taken to eliminate it.
The investigation showed that a small amount of surface moisture
on fine coal causes it to agglomerate. The separation obtained, even
in the centrifuge, was on agglomerates rather than on individual par-
ticles. The amount of agglomeration seemed to vary widely between coals
but was present to some degree with all of them. The end result of
this agglomeration was a large quantity of misplaced material, both in
-------
10.
Complete drying of the sample immediately prior to the float-sink
process, together with the addition of a dispersing agent to the
gravity liquid and sample, solved the problem, as shown in Table 1.
The revised standard procedure for float-sink analysis is contained
in this report in Appendix F-l.
Table 2 is a sample copy of the data sheet utilized in the Phase I
investigation. The top row of data is the chemical analysis of the
"as received," R.O.M. coal. These values were used as the base figures
in determining subsequent sulfur reduction. The second grouping of
data is that obtained on the float-sink fractions of the 30 mesh coal.
The line of figures opposite "composite" is the mathematically recom-
bined analysis of the float-and-sink material and yields the analysis
of the feed material for that particular test. These figures should
compare favorably with the "as received" analysis.
If the ash in the 30 mesh float-sink test is used for an example,
it can be seen that the float material constituted 86.6 percent of the
total and had an analytically-determined ash content of U.U2 percent.
The remainder, or 13.** percent of the total, was sink material with an
analytically-determined ash content of 53-^ percent. Combining these
two fractions mathematically yields 100 percent of the material with
an ash value of 10.98 percent. This value compares favorably with the
10.1| percent ash obtained by chemical analysis on the "as received"
coal. This procedure was utilized as a safeguard against sampling
and analytical errors.
The level of sulfur reduction was determined by using the differ-
ence between the sulfur content of the "as received" coal and the
sulfur content of the 1.60 float material obtained in the float-sink
tests. The 6k percent total sulfur reduction shown in Table 2 for
the 30 mesh float-sink test represents the reduction from 2.50 percent
level of total sulfur shown in the "as received" analysis to the 0.90
percent level of total sulfur in the 1.60 float material.
In a few cases it was necessary to calculate the pyritic sulfur
values of the sink fractions, since the chemical analysis indicated
that there was more pyritic sulfur present in the sample than there
was total sulfur. This, of course, is impossible. It was caused by
the incomplete extraction of the non-pyritic iron with hydrochloric
acid from the sink fractions. This necessary calculation did not
detract from the value of the checks, since neither the total ash
nor total sulfur were affected by analysis problems.
This was one of numerous minor problems encountered with chemical
analysis of high sulfur samples. A general discussion of these problems
can be found in Appendix G, a special report by Ronald K. Young, BCR
-------
3 Drums
1-1/2 x 0
Jeffrey Hammer
Mill to-1/4"
2 Drums for
Possible
Majac Tests
6070-Lot No-2
1/4 xO
1/4 xO
Remainder of Sample,
Cone & Quarter
to One 128 Ib
Sample
Discard Remainder
6070-Lot No-1
>- Discard
Save for Reference
Sample
6070-Lot No-1
2 Ibs
Pulverize
to -20 M
8 oz -20 M | | 8 or -20 M j
Pulverize to
—60 M Chemical
6070-Lot No-l-AB
8 Q' -20 M f—>• Discard
Pulverize and Stage Grind to
65-80 Percent -200 Mesh
Chart will be Provided
to Determine Exact
Percentage — Screen
Analysis at 50 M
100 M, and 200 M
6070-Lot No-1-A
Pulverize and
Stage Grind
to -30 M
6070-Lot No-l-B
[ Float Sink at 1.60 ]
Float
6070-Lot No-l-A-1
Float Sink at 1.60 f
Sink
6070-Lot No- l-A-2-t
Proximate,
Sulfur Forms
Sink
6070-Lot No-l-B-2-t
Float
6070-Lot No-l-B-1
Proximate,
Sulfur Forms
Proximate,
Sulfur Forms
Proximate,
Sulfur Forms
Proximate,
Sulfur Forms
+ Btu
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G
Figure 1. Flow Sheet for Theoretical Evaluation from 3 Drum Samples
-------
13.
(6070P39)
Figure 2. Centrifuge Utilized to Effect the Separation
-------
H
r--
(6070P37)
-------
TABLE 1. PERCENT ASH IN 1.60 FLOAT MATERIAL OF RUN-OF-MINE COAL
CRUSHED TO VARIOUS SIZES, SHOWING THE EFFECT OF AGGLOMERATION
IN THE FLOAT-SINK PROCESS AS RELATED TO SIZE
Size of Crushed
Original
Float-sink Technique
Revised
Float-sink Technique
or Pulverized
Run-of-Mine Coal
1-1/2 inch x 0 CTECO
3/8 inch x 0 CTECO
ik mesh x 0 CTECO
30 mesh x 0 BCR
200 mesh x 0 BCR
Ash, Percent
6.13
4.92
5.06
5.92*
9.28*
Pyritic Sulfur,
Percent
1.01
0.57
0.39
0.65*
1.35*
Ash, Percent
6.13
4.92
5.06
k.bz
^.37
Pyritic Sulfur,
Percent
1.01
0.57
0.39
0.32
0.15
-------
16.
TABLE 2. SAMPLE COPY OF PHASE I DATA SHEET
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification 6-A SEAM, HARRISON cnrnflTY., DHTD
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
1735
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.92
Ash
10.1+
Volatile
Matter
38.k
Fixed
Carbon
51.2
Total
Sulfur
2.50
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.86
Organic
Sulfur
0.63
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13.23U
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86.6
Sink at 1.6o 13.lt
Composite 100.0
Ash
k.kz
53. U
10.98
Total
Sulfur
0.90
11.5
2.32
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.32
11.2
1.78
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.8
Total
Sulfur
6k. 0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85.9
Sink at 1.60 i^.l
Composite 100.0
Ash
M7
U9.9
10.79
Total
Sulfur
0.78
12.8
2.U7
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
12.3
1.86
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.9
Total
Sulfur
69.8
-------
17.
The p.c. grind was prepared after the Btu content and fixed carbon
content of the R.O.M. coal had been determined and the correct percent-
age of minus 200 mesh had been selected from Table 3.
The samples of R.O.M. coal were stage-ground until (l) the correct
percentage (*1.0 percent) of minus 200 mesh material was obtained, and
(2) all of the material passed a 50 mesh screen. The p.c. grind samples
were than processed in the same manner as the 30 mesh samples, previ-
ously described.
TABLE 3. REQUIRED PULVERIZED COAL FINENESS
PERCENT THROUGH NO. 200 SIEVE*
Fuel Classification (Dry Basis)
Fixed Fixed Fixed
Carbon, Carbon, Carbon, Fixed Carbon, Below
Percent Percent Percent 69 Percent
97.9 85.9 76.9
to to to
86 77 69
80 75 70 70 65 60
* Steam, Its Generation and Use, The Babcock
and Wilcox Company, p. 17-2
The complete standard procedure for this phase of the test work
appears in Appendix F, BCR Standard Procedure F-2.
The data sheets for the 70 coals tested under Phase I of the
program appear in Appendix A, pages A-l through A-70.
B. Summary of Results
In order to fully appreciate the sulfur reductions obtainable at
the extremely fine sizes of pulverization studied under the BCR contract,
it is necessary to compare BCR's data with the data obtained by
Commercial Testing and Engineering Company for the larger topsizes.
Table k shows the percent pyritic sulfur reduction obtained at a 1.60
Btu
Above
12,900
Btu
From
12,900
to
11,000
Btu
Below
11,000
-------
H
CD
TABLE 1*. PYRITIC SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL
Coal
Identification
Lot - Seam
1725
1728
1729
1730
1733
1731*
1735
17U3
171*1*
171*5
171+6
171*7
17l*8
171*9
1750
1751
1752
1755
1756
1757
1762
1763
1761*
- Pittsburgh
- No. 9
- Nos. 6, 7, & 8
- No. 6
- No. 8
- No. 6-A
- No. 6-A
- No. 5-A
- No. 1*
- No. 6
- Lower Kittanning
- Lower Kittanning
Lower Freeport
- Lower Kittanning
- Lower Kittanning
- Upper Freeport
- Upper Freeport
- Upper Kittanning
- Lower Kittanning
- Lower Kittanning
- Freeport
- No. 8
- Freeport
- Bakerstown
Location
County, State
Marion, W. Va.
Morgan, Ohio
Athens, Ohio
Perry, Ohio
Belmont, Ohio
Harrison, Ohio
Harrison, Ohio
Jefferson, Ohio
Mahoning, Ohio
Columbiana, Ohio
Cambria, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Westmoreland, Pa
Indiana, Pa.
Somerset, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Grant, W. Va.
Harrison, Ohio
Preston, W. Va.
Grant W. Va.
Pyritic Sulfur,
Weight Percent,
Raw R.O.M. Coal
1.07
2.92
2.82
3.70
2.81*
1.1*2
1.86
3.08
1.80
1.79
0.90
1.81*
i*.li*
0.91*
3.22
1.31
2.31
1*.00
l*.56
2.16
2.32
0.98
2.85
Percent
CTECO
3/8" x 100 M
5l*. 7
1*9.8
U9.6
71*. 6
1*3.5
48.9
63.5
52.2
61*. 5
62.1
76.6
79.1*
65.1
83.5
74.1*
62.8
87.9
77.7
74.6
65.7
50.3
73. 4
82.8
Reduction
CTECO
ll* M x 0
73-8
56.3
61.3
71.8
59-5
71.0
77.5
67.3
77.3
77.8
80.3
82.7
63.0
82.1*
76.1
71.7
91.1*
76.5
75.2
67.2
61.5
78.6
82.6
at 1.6C
BCR
30 M x
66.1*
60.1
68.1
81.1
59.1
76.8
82.8
71.1*
81.7
82.1
76.7
83.2
75.1*
81*. 0
82.3
78.6
93.1
86.2
82.7
75.9
66.1*
83.7
90.2
) Float
BCR
0 p.c. Grind
78.5
72.1*
80.9
85.1
71*. 3
87.3
91.9
80.8
87.2
92.2
87.8
90.8
83.3
91.5
88.8
81*. 7
93-9
90.5
88.6
85.6
77.2
85.7
-------
TABLE 4. PYRITIC SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SEECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL (Continued)
Coal Identification
Lot - Seam
1765 -
1766 -
1767 -
1768 -
1770 -
1771 -
1772 -
1773 -
1774 -
1775 -
1788 -
1789 -
1790 -
1791 -
1792 -
1793 -
1794 -
1795 -
1796 -
1797 -
1798 -
1817 -
IfilB -
1819 -
1820 -
1821 -
No. 8
No. 9
No. 6
No. 8
Thick Freeport
Lower Freeport
Upper Freeport
Double Freeport
No. 5
No. 5
No. 2
No. 5
No. 5
No. 2
No. 6
No. 5
No. 6
No. 5
No. 6
No. 6
No. 2
No. 5
No. 6
No. 6
No. 6
No. 7- A
Location
County, State
Jefferson, Ohio
Belmont, Ohio
Coshocton, Ohio
Jefferson, Ohio
Allegheny, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Sullivan, Ind.
Lawrence, Ohio
Peoria, 111.
Knox, 111.
Fulton, 111.
Montgomery, 111.
Jefferson, 111.
Perry, 111.
Jefferson, 111.
Franklin, 111.
Williamson, 111.
Franklin, 111.
Fulton, 111.
Saline, 111.
Saline, 111.
Hopkins, Ky.
Columbiana, Ohio
Jefferson, Ohio
Pyritic Sulfur,
Weight Percent,
Raw R.O.M. Coal
2-26
1.88
2.09
3-69
1.68
1.89
1.93
1.11
3.94
3-93
4.10
5.60
2.30
3-03
0.84
2.57
1.68
1.92
2.82
0.69
3-90
1.80
3.5^
1.84
1.76
0.98
Percent
CTECO
3/8" x 100 M
39.9
45.3
61.8
31.4
69.1
58.2
78.0
70.4
61.9
64.0
70.6
68.3
53-5
60.5
32.5
62.6
50.3
62.6
72.3
42.1
54.0
57.7
74.2
61.5
90.1
75.0
Reduction at 1.60 Float
CTECO
14 M x 0
46.6
50.0
52.2
44.7
75.2
73-6
85.0
84.6
66.5
69.5
69.8
75.8
59.1
59-4
31-5
64.9
54.4
62.7
74.2
46.7
66.8
61.8
70.8
65.7
92.2
73-4
BCR
30 M x 0
51.3
59.0
70.3
56.6
82.1
81.0
88.1
78.4
72.8
76.6
75.4
73.7
65.2
71.9
51.2
67.7
62.5
74.5
78.0
52.2
69-5
53-3
76.8
69.6
93-7
85.7
BCR
p.c. Grind
69.9
74.5
71.3
74.3
88.1
90.5
91.7
83.8
82.0
82.2
82.7
80.7
76.5
82.2
60.7
77.8
73.8
80.7
84.0
63.8
73.8
61.7
85.0
76.1
93.7
-------
TABLE 4. FYRITIC SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL (Continued)
Coal Identification
Lot - Seam
1822 - No. 6
1823 - No. 6
1824 - Lower Kittanning
1825 - Kittanning
1826 - Lower Freeport
1827 - Lower Freeport
1828 - Upper Freeport
1829 - Lower Kittanning
1830 - Upper Freeport
1831 - Upper Clarion
1832 - No. 4-A
1833 - No. 7-A
183*1 - Upper Freeport
1835 - No. 5
1836 - Upper Kittanning
183? - Upper Freeport
1838 - No. 6
1839 - Middle Kittanning
1840 - Lower Kittanning
1841 - Middle Kittanning
1842 - Lower Clarion
Location
County, State
Tuscarawas, Ohio
Tuscarawas, Ohio
Indiana, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Clearfield, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Jackson, Ohio
Guernsey, Ohio
Clearfield, Pa.
Muskingum, Ohio
Cambria, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Muskingum, Ohio
Clearfield, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Pyritic Sulfur,
Weight Percent,
Raw R.O.M. Coal
4.25
3.23
3-18
IK oo
2.01
1.77
2.20
3.10
1.61*
1.92
1.93
2.62
2.86
4.62
1.00
3.19
1.55
8.45
2.63
0.22
7.67
Percent
CTECO
3/8" x 100 M
80.6
73-0
81.4
52. 4
70.9
82.9
73-9
75.6
79-3
75.0
55.9
56.5
49.5
. 75.4
83.3
78.5
64.3
49.5
74.0
16.7
72.0
Reduction
CTECO
14 M x 0
79-2
74.2
81.6
64.2
74.1
84.5
78.9
77.7
83.1
77.3
60.0
57.8
68.1
79-0
80.8
78.9
65.7
56.0
75.8
^5.5
78.6
at 1.60
BCR
30 M x
82.4
76.5
84.3
64.5
84.6
88.1
79-1
79.4
86.0
82.3
68.9
53-^
78.7
90.5
84.0
81.2
76.1
61.8
81.4
59.1
73-8
Float
BCR
0 p.c. Grind
87.5
79.6
90.3
77.5
95.0
92.1
85-9
86.5
90.2
82.3
77.2
63.7
88.5
91.1
82.0
93.1
81.9
75.6
89.4
54.5
-------
21.
specific gravity at topsizes of 3/8 inch, lU mesh, 30 mesh, and at the
p.c. grind for all 70 of the coals tested. Total sulfur reductions
obtained for the 70 coals are shown in Table 5. These data are shown
graphically in Figures h and 5. In addition, the sulfur reductions
obtainable by cleaning the 1-1/2 inch topsize R.O.M. coal at a 1.60
specific gravity are also shown. Figure k shows that by cleaning the
1-1/2 inch topsize at a 1.60 specific gravity, it is possible to
reduce the pyritic sulfur content of 51-5 percent of the coals tested
(36 coals) by 50 to 60 percent. Also, at this topsize and separating
gravity, five of the coals, or approximately 7 percent of those tested,
were reduced in pyritic sulfur content to the 70 to 80 percent reduction
level.
At the opposite end of the size range, in the p.c. grind, and
again referring to Figure k, all 70 coals (100 percent) were reduced
in pyritic sulfur content by 50 to 60 percent. Seventeen (24 percent)
of the coals tested at the p.c. grind were reduced in pyritic sulfur
content in the 90 to 100 percent range.
The greatest reduction in pyritic sulfur content occurred by
reducing the topsize of the coal from 1-1/2 inches to 3/8 inches, as
shown by the horizontal displacement between these two curves in
Figure k. In general, the second largest reduction of pyritic sulfur
occurred when the coal was reduced from a topsize of 30 mesh to its
p.c. grind.
This trend was also followed in total sulfur reduction, as shown
in Figure 5. Maximum total sulfur reduction ranged from 50 to 60
percent for ten of the coals at the 1-1/2 inch topsize to 80 to 90
percent for one coal at the p.c. grind.
Another interesting evaluation of pyrite liberation and removal
can be made when the washability curves of the three topsizes tested
by Commercial Testing for individual coals are combined with the BCR
data. Curves for six coals have been plotted and are shown in Figures 6
through 11. Figure 6 shows the washability curves for the Ohio No. 6-A
seam from Harrison County, Ohio. Two significant reductions in pyritic
sulfur are obtainable with this coal as it is reduced in size and cleaned
at a 1.60 specific gravity. The first occurs when the coal is crushed
from a 1-1/2 inch topsize to a 3/8 inch topsize, and the second occurs
when the coal is pulverized from its 30 mesh topsize to its p.c. grind.
The greatest reduction (1.05$ to 0.6%) occurs between the 1-1/2 inch
and the 3/8 inch topsize, indicating that there is a large quantity of
coarse pyrite in the coal. The large pyritic sulfur reduction between
the 30 mesh grind and the p.c. grind indicates that there is also a
relatively large amount of extremely fine pyrite present in this coal.
The pyritic sulfur reductions obtainable in the mixture of Lower
Kittanning and Lower Freeport Seam from Cambria County, Pennsylvania,
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL (Continued)
ro
ro
Coal
Identification
Lot - Seam
1766
1767
1768
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1817
1818
1819
1820
- No. 9
- No. 6
- No. 8
- Thick Freeport
- Lower Freeport
- Upper Freeport
- Double Freeport
- No. 5
- No. 5
- No. 2
- No. 5
- No. 5
- No. 2
- No. 6
- No. 5
- No. 6
- No. 5
- No. 6
- No. 6
- No. 2
- No. 5
- No. 6
- No. 6
- No. 6
Location
County, State
Belmont, Ohio
Coshocton, Ohio
Jefferson, Ohio
Allegheny, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Sullivan, Ind.
Lawrence, Ohio
Peoria, 111.
Knox, 111.
Fulton, 111.
Montgomery, 111.
Jefferson, 111.
Perry, 111.
Jefferson, 111.
Franklin, 111.
Williamson, 111.
Franklin, 111.
Fulton, 111.
Saline, 111.
Saline, 111.
Hopkins, Ky.
Columbiana, Ohio
Total Sulfur,
Weight Percent
Raw R.O.M. Coal
3.02
3.70
4.71
2.08
2.54
2.^3
1.69
5.57
^.63
5.93
7.28
3.98
5.00
1.35
4.52
2.34
3-02
4.38
1.14
5.35
2.68
5.05
2.46
2.19
Percent
CTECO •
3/8" x 100 M
28.1
37.8
19.3
49.2
41.0
55.4
4o.o
4o.5
56.1
42.8
52.0
25.1
31.1
10.9
30.8
27.7
34.5
40.1
17.0
39.7
40.7
49.1
37.3
73-5
Reduction
CTECO
14 M x 0
31.0
31.6
31.3
57.8
52.4
60.4
50.0
45.7
59.4
42.5
59.3
29.5
3L9
9.1
33.4
30.3
34.4
44.2
19.1
50.4
43.4
46.8
41.7
77.3
at 1.60
BCR
30 M x
36.1
34.5
40.8
66.3
63.0
67.5
46.7
49.7
65.2
51.4
54.9
29.9
39.0
20.7
37.2
39-3
39.7
47.3
22.8
49.7
33-2
53-1
43.9
76.7
Float
BCR
0 p.c. Grind
45.7
36.8
55.6
69.2
70.1
70.4
52.1
56.6
70.2
56.3
59.3
37.7
45.0
28.9
42.0
49.6
44.4
52.1
28.1
56.3
45.9
60.0
52.4
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL
Coal Identification
Lot - Seam
1725
1728
1729
1730
1733
1731*
1735
171*5 -
171*8
17U9
1750
1751
1752
1755
1756
1757
1762
1763
1761*
1765
6, 7, & 8
Pittsburgh
No. 9
Nos,
No. 6
No. 8
No
No
No
No
6-A
6-A
5-A
1*
No. 6
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Freeport
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Upper Freeport
Upper Freeport
Upper Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Lower Kittanning
Freeport
No. 8
Freeport
Bakerstown
No. 8
Location
County, State
Marion, W. Va.
Morgan, Ohio
Athens, Ohio
Perry, Ohio
Belmont, Ohio
Harrison, Ohio
Harrison, Ohio
Jefferson, Ohio
Mahoning, Ohio
Columbiana, Ohio
Cambria, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Westmoreland, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Somerset, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Grant, W. Va.
Harrison, Ohio
Preston, W. Va.
Grant, W. Va.
Jefferson, Ohio
Total Sulfur,
Weight Percent
Raw R.O.M. Coal
Percent Reduction at 1.60 Float
2.
5.
1*.
k,
k.
2.
2,
3-
2,
2,
k,
5.
2,
3.
1,
3.
30
35
60
72
58
18
50
90
5k
kk
l.li*
2.42
4.90
1.50
3-7^
1.83
2.71
66
20
52
6k
52
Ok
3.36
CTECO
3/8" x 100 M
2k. 6
20.1
28.2
55-3
15.7
29.9
^3-5
37.1*
k9.k
1*9.8
1*6.8
59.9
54. 6
51.0
61.8
1*0.9
72.1
61*. 2
6U. 3
l*U.5
27.2
50.6
68.6
16.3
CTECO
Ik M x 0
35.0
23-3
35.3
52.6
2V
kk!k
56.3
1*8.6
59.9
63.9
1*5.5
62.9
55.1
52.0
65.1*
1*8.5
76.6
63.3
61*. 1
**7.5
36.5
5l*. 7
71.2
29.1
BCR
30 M x 0
31.7
27.1
37.8
60.0
26.1*
1*7.7
6U. 0
55A
61*. 6
68.9
1*6.5
62.0
63.5
53-3
71.1*
57.4
80.1
71.7
70.8
57.1
1*1.5
59.2
76.3
33.3
BCR
p.c. Grind
38.3
33.0
1*7.0
63.1
36.7
56.0
68.8
62.6
67.7
75.8
51.8
69.0
70.0
56.0
76.7
62.8
81.5
7l*. 7
75.8
63.9
1*9.5
61.8
77.6
1*6.1
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED
TO NOMINAL TOPSEE OF COAL (Continued)
Coal Identification
Lot - Seam
1821 - No. 7-A
1822 - No. 6
1823 - No. 6
1824 - Lower Kittanning
1825 - Kittanning
1826 - Lower Freeport
1827 - Lower Freeport
1828 - Upper Freeport
1829 - Lower Kittanning
1830 - Upper Freeport
1831 - Upper Clarion
1832 - No. 4-A
1833 - No. 7-A
1834 - Upper Freeport
1835 - No. 5
1836 - Upper Kittanning
1837 - Upper Freeport
1838 - No. 6
1839 - Middle Kittanning
181*0 - Lower Kittanning
1841 - Middle Kittanning
1842 - Lower Clarion
Location
County, State
Jefferson, Ohio
Tuscarawas, Ohio
Tuscarawas, Ohio
Indiana, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Clearfield, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Armstrong, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Jackson, Ohio
Guernsey, Ohio
Clearfield, Pa.
Muskingum, Ohio
Cambria, Pa.
Cambria, Pa.
Muskingum, Ohio
Clearfield, Pa.
Indiana, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Clarion, Pa.
Total Sulfur,
Weight Percent
Raw R.O.M. Coal
1.43
5.81
4.85
*<•.00
4.83
2.68
2.16
Percent Reduction at 1.60 Float
•93
,70
,25
,54
,88
,89
.W
-36
.17
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
5
1
3-9^
3.10
9.24
3.54
0.68
9.12
CTECO
3/8" x 100 M
49.3
54.4
47.6
63.8
42.7
53-7
58.9
56.4
6l.l
59.7
52.1
24.7
28. ^
1*0.8
61*. 5
44.0
66.7
29.9
1*3.1
55.4
2.8
58.5
CTECO
ll* M x 0
47.9
52.8
1*7.6
64.0
53.0
58.2
61.1
60.7
66.4
61.9
54.3
27.4
29.1
56.2
75.4
44.1
67.0
27.4
48.1
58.5
4.3
63.6
BCR
30 M x 0
58.0
57.7
49.1
66.0
53-2
67.2
63.9
57.7
64.1
64.4
58.7
33.8
23.7
67.2
76.9
48.7
66.0
36.1
55.0
63.3
17.6
62.5
BCR
p.c. Grind
62.2
61.3
50.9
69.5
64.0
73-9
69.4
62.8
68.1
64.4
58.7
38.7
34.2
74.7
78.4
51.3
76.9
38.7
67.1
70.1
17.6
-------
25,
100-
90-
80-
o
60-
8 50H
u.
o
Z 40-
-------
26.
100-
90-
80-
0 70
Ul
60-
8 50
u.
O
7 40-
o. 30-
20-
10-
0
CTECO 14 Mesh x 0
BCR 30 Mesh x 0
CTECO 3/8 Inch x 100 Mesh
BCR p.c. Grind
CTECO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
0-10 ICfcZO 20^30 30t40 40^50 50-60 60t?0 70^80 80^90 90^100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION LEVELS, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G14
Figure 5. Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
-------
Ill
u
lOO-i
90-
80-
70-
60-
O 50-
1U
5
cf 40-1
30-
20-
10-
BCR 30 Mesh x 0
BCR p.e. Grind
' ° CTECO 3/8 Inch x
100 Mesh
CTECO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
CTECO 14MeshxO
®1.60 Float Fractions
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
1.0
1.2
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G13
Figure 6. Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal for
Ohio No. 6-A Seam, Harrison County, Ohio (BCR 1735)
-------
»-
111
111
a.
h-
u
a"
111
>
100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
0.
/BCRSOMesh xO
^•S^ o
BCRp.c. Grind /%)s^' '°^®*
• /X^o^^
// /
1 /
jo 1- CTECO 3/8 Inch x 100 Mesh
' oCTECO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
^CTECO 14 Mesh x 0
$ 1.60 Float Fractions
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G15
ro
CD
Figure 7. Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal for Lower
-------
100-,
90-
80-
70-
60H
5 so-
LU
d 40-
30-
20-
10-
BCR 30 Mesh
BCR p.c. Grind
/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
CTECO 14 Mesh x
100 Mesh
> 1.60 Float Fractions
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G16
Figure 8. Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal for
Ohio No. 8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio (BCR 1768)
r\3
-------
100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
O 50-
IU
a 40H
30-
20-
10-
BCR 30 Mesh x 0
BCR p.c.
CTECO 3/8 Inch x 100
CTECO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
CTECO 14MeshxO
@ 1.60 Float Fractions
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
1.0
1.2
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G17
Figure 9. Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal for
-------
100-
90-
80-
70-
i-
ui
oe 60-
ui
0.
O 50-
UJ
CT 40-
_i
UJ
>-
30-
20-
10-
CTECO 3/8 Inch x 100 Mesh
BCR 30 Mesh x 0
® d
BCR p.c. Grind
CTECO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
® 1.60 Float Fractions
o CTECO 14MeshxO
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
1.0
1.2
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G18
Figure 10. Pyritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal for
Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County, Pennsylvania (BCR 1827)
LO
-------
ro
1-
u
Of
111
0.
1-
X
O
HI
a
*
lOO-i
90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
0
30 Mesh xO— j Q ^0
nf,n „ . . 0. — / o •^""^ o^CttCO 1-1/2 Inch x 100 Mesh
BCR p.e. Grind®,0 / /
//y
/ / / /XCTECO 3/8 Inch x 1 00 Mesh
/
/
1— CTECO 14MeshxO
® 1 .60 Float Fractions
I I I 1 1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
PYRITIC SULFUR, WEIGHT PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G19
Figure 11. P/ritic Sulfur as Related to Yield at Nominal Topsize of Coal
-------
33.
seam coal. The same evaluation can be made for the Ohio No. 8 seam,
Jefferson County, Ohio, shown in Figure 8.
Figure 9 indicates that there is little coarse pyrite in this
Illinois No. 5 coal since there is relatively no pyritic sulfur reduc-
tion at a 1.60 specific gravity between the 1-1/2 inch topsize and the
lU mesh topsize. Somewhat significant reductions are obtained, however,
at both the 30 mesh topsize and the p.c. grind. These data are in
agreement with the findings of other research organizations who have
shown that the majority of pyritic sulfur in Illinois coal occurs in
the form of fine pyrite.
The opposite extreme of pyrite liberation and removal from the
Illinois coal is in the Lower Freeport Seam from Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, where most of the pyrite occurs as coarse pyrite and is
removable at the 3/8 inch topsize. See Figure 10.
The final set of curves, Figure 11, is for the Pittsburgh Seam
coal from Marion County, West Virginia, showing a step reduction of
the pyritic sulfur content of the 1.60 float coal with the exception
that either the lU mesh topsize or the 30 mesh topsize is misplaced.
The similarity in pyrite reduction between BCR's 30 mesh x 0 grind
and Commercial Testing's lU mesh x 0 grind was probably caused by the
fact that the mean particle diameter of the two grinds was similar.
The stage grinding procedure used by BCR on the 30 mesh x 0 raw coal
would obviously produce a relatively large mean particle diameter. This
could be equivalent to the mean particle diameter of a Ik mesh x 0
grind that had been produced by normal grinding techniques. The rel-
ative cleaning characteristics of the two grinds would, therefore, be
similar.
Figures 6 through 11 exhibit some common characteristics. In
general, a straight line can be drawn through the five points showing
the 1.60 specific gravity separation for the five different size consists
tested. There is, of course, some scattering of points around the
straight line, but this could be caused by the fact that the
Rosin-Rammler plots for the five sizes have dissimilar slopes. The
sizing factor could be caused by many factors, including the method of
preparing the sized fraction, or even the crushing and pulverizing
equipment itself. It has been stated that the stage grinding used by
BCR on the 30 mesh x 0 grind could place the sizing very close to some
of Commercial Testing's lk mesh x 0 grinds. It is also known that a
hammer mill will prepare a completely different size consist than a jaw
crusher with a given coal when crushing to a given topsize.
On the other hand, if we assume that the straight line drawn
through the scattering of 1.60 gravity points is valid, we are inferring
that there is some relationship in the size distribution of pyrite in
-------
The slope of a line drawn through the points of 1.60 gravity
separation does give a quick evaluation as to the relative difficulty
or ease of pyritic sulfur reduction in terms of loss of recovery or
yield of clean coal. The steeper the line, the greater the loss in
recovery.
The removal of pyrite from coal should be effected by cleaning
the coarsest size consist possible.
The cost of pulverizing coals to the minus 30 mesh and p.c. grinds,
and subsequently effecting a gravity separation, is rather expensive.
On the other hand, an increased yield of low sulfur coal could at least
partially affect the cost of pulverization. A trade off between sulfur
reduction and coal yield would have to be made by cleaning at a higher
specific gravity than 1.60. If at least two additional points could
be plotted for these two grinds, it might be possible to superimpose a
set of isopyritic-sulfur curves on top of the other five curves and
give the evaluator a much better feel for the economics of fine grinding
and cleaning.
For example,'at the moment we can tell for each coal, at the 30
mesh topsize and p.c. grind, how much additional material must be lost
in order to obtain a single unselected pyritic sulfur reduction. It
would be both interesting and helpful to know how much coal could be
recovered at selected reductions in pyritic sulfur content within the
-------
35.
IV. PHASE II EVALUATIONS
A. Test Facility
A coal cleaning test plant was erected at Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., having a capacity of 2-1/2 to 3 tons per hour when
cleaning 3/8 inch x 0 coal, and from 1 to 1-1/1+ tons per hour when
cleaning 30 mesh x 0 coal. The plant was designed around the initial
fine coal cleaning device selected for testing, the concentrating table.
Sufficient flexibility was designed into the plant to ensure that a
variety of cleaning devices could be installed for testing at a later
date.
The flow circuit for the 3/8 x 0 coal is shown in Figure 12. The
raw coal is fed from the raw coal hopper by a vibrating feeder onto a
portable elevating conveyor which discharges the coal into a surge hop-
per. A double flight, variable speed screw feeder discharges this dry
coal into a wetting sluice. The water is introduced into the wetting
sluice, countercurrent to the resulting slurry flow, through nine spray
nozzles in order to obtain the turbulence required for thoroughly wet-
ting the coal. Additional water that has been treated with a solid,
low-foam, wetting agent is introduced into the pump sump. The water
from a constant head tank is metered through a micrometer-type valve so
that the resulting slurry is in the proper solids-to-liquid ratio for
(l) pumping to the feedbox of the concentrating table, and (2) tabling.
The 3/8 x 0 refuse from the table is sluiced to a refuse tank where
it is accumulated. The clean coal is passed across a vibrating dewater-
ing screen equipped with a tapered-slot wedge wire screen. The dewatered
oversize, or plus 30 mesh material, is discharged onto a belt conveyor.
The undersize is pumped to a clarifying cyclone and the thickened under-
flow is discharged into a disc filter for dewatering. The filter cake
is discharged on top of the dewatered coarse coal on the belt conveyor.
The combined product is discharged into two 2-1/2 ton-capacity stainless
steel storage bins.
Figure 13 shows the flow diagram for the 30 mesh x 0 circuit. All
of the components are the same as the 3/8 inch x 0 circuit, with the ex-
ception of the coal feeding and wetting system. The 30 mesh x 0 circuit
employs a surge hopper, vibrating feeder, agitator, and pump. The coal,
water, and wetting agent are all added to the agitator for complete mix-
ing and wetting of the coal. The use of the dewatering screen and
clarifying cyclone with the 30 mesh cleaning is optional.
B. Concentrating Table
1. Description and Theory of Operation
One of the better descriptions of the concentrating table (Figure 30)
can be found in the Bureau of Mines El 6239 entitled "Performance Char-
-------
36.
A. W. Deurbrouck and E. R. Palovitch.
While their description, which follows, is made on a full-sized
commercial deck with a feed rate of between 10 to 12 tons per hour, the
description and theory of operation also applies to the quarter-size
deck with a capacity of between 2.5 to 3 tons per hour utilized in this
program.
The table employs the principle of flowing a mixture of coal and
water over a series of riffles which are shaken rapidly to effect
a separation of the coal by particle size and specific gravity.
Essentially the table consists of a pair of steel channels upon
which is mounted a rubber-covered deck and a drive mechanism.
The flat, rhomboid-shaped deck is approximately 1? feet long on
the clean-coal side and 8 feet wide on the refuse side. It is
supported in an essentially horizontal plane, but slopes enough
(perpendicular to the motion of the deck) so that water fed along
the upper long side will flow across the table surface and dis-
charge along the lower clean-coal side. The deck is attached to
a differential-motion drive which gives it a quick-return convey-
ing motion, moving material lying on the table surface away from
the drive end. The frequency and amplitude of stroke and the
transverse slope are adjusted to suit the material being treated.
Attached to the rubber covering on the deck is a system of rubber
riffles tapering toward the refuse end of the table and parallel
to the direction of the conveying motion. Standard body riffles
are approximately 1/k inch high at the drive end of the table.
Between each set of three or four body riffles are high (over 1
inch at the drive end) "pool" riffles. These riffles form dams,
behind which stratification of the bed occurs. Low-density
particles ride over the riffles, reporting to the clean-coal side
of the table; high-density particles are carried behind the rif-
fles by the differential-motion drive to the refuse end of the
table.
At one corner of the long diagonal and above the deck is a feed-
box with a slotted bottom to spread the feed onto the deck. Beside
the feedbox and along that side of the deck is a trough, having
adjustable gates through which the flow of dressing water to the
deck is distributed.
The cross slope of the table is varied by a handwheel through a
rack-and-pinion to a pair of wedges beneath the deck which are on
opposite sides of the axis of the table.
Because of the reciprocating action of the table and the transverse
flow of water, the pulp fans out immediately upon contacting the
table surface. The upward slope of the table toward the refuse
-------
37.
(6070P47)
(6070P44)
Raw Coal
Hopper
Raw Coal
Feeder
Portable
Belt Conveyor
Surge
Hopper
Screw
Feeder
(6070P24)
Refuse Tank
2.5 tph Coal
3.75 tph Water
Wetting
Sluice
Sump
Pump
. 1.25 tph
^ Water *
Deister Table
.5 tph Coal
.5 tph Water
2 tph Clean Coal
4.5 tph Water
Dewatering
Screen
-30 M
.3 tph Coal
4.16 tph Water
+ 30 M
1.7 tph Coal
1' .34 tph Water
(6070P26)
Pump
.02 tph Coal
2.80 tph Water
^^••••1
1
(6070P28)
Sump
Pump
Cyclone
Waste
Overflow
1.16 tph Water
.08 tph Coal }
3 tph Water
.22 tph Coal
.20 tph Coal
.20 tph Water
Disc Filter
Waste
1.304 tph Water
.28 tph Coal
.056 tph Water
(6070P51)
Belt Conveyor
Note: Flow for coal having 20% refuse
at 1.60 sp. gr. and 15% minus
30 mesh in clean coal fraction.
(6070P42)
Storage Bins
Bituminous Coil Research, Inc. 6070G20
-------
39.
(6070P47)
(6070P49)
(6070P41)
Raw Coal
Hopper
Raw Coal
Feeder
Portable
Belt Conveyor
Surge Hopper
Vibrating
Feeder
1.25tph Coal
2.80 tph Water
Denver
Agitator
Pump
(6070P24)
(6070P31)
war
1
Deister Table
.95 tph Water
.25 tph Refuse
.375 tph Water
Refuse Tank
1.0 tph Coal
3.375 tph Water
Pump
(6070P50)
(6070P42)
Note: (1) Flow for Coal Having 20% Refuse
at 1.60 sp. gr.
(2) Flow Sheet for Tests with 30 Mesh x 0
Coal Rough Cleaned at the 3/8" x 0 Size
Would Differ Only in Material Balance
(6070P27)
Disc Filter
1 tph Coal
.2 tph Water
t
Waste
3.175 tph Water
Belt Conveyor
(6070P51)
Storage Bins
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070O21
-------
in,
the pool riffles cause the pulp to form a pool near the feedbox.
This area, in which the bed of material is several particles deep
and substantially above the standard riffles, is the zone of pri-
mary stratification. In this zone the shaking motion of the deck
combined with the cross current of water stratifies the particles
by density, similar to the action of a jig washer.
A comprehensive study of the fundamentals of table operation is
given by Bird.(l) Zimmerman (2) describes the separation on a
concentrating table as follows:
"Since stratification and separation of particles are
not complete as a result of any one riffle, a series of
riffles are used, repeating the cycle of stratification
and hindered settling from riffle to riffle, obtaining
purer products as the particles fan out and progress forward
and downward over the table.
"The smallest heaviest particles stratify themselves
downward to the surface of the deck more quickly and are
carried out by table movement toward the refuse end at a
faster rate than coarse heavy particles. Light-gravity
larger pieces ride on the top layer of particles and flow
on down the slope of the deck as a result of the coarse
flow of wash water at right angles to the shaking movement
of the table. Heavy large particles settle down next to
the fine heavy particles and are carried behind the riffles
towards the longitudinal end but do not ride as high up the
table as the heavy fine particles.
"There is a tendency for the fine or small size light-
gravity particles to lie between the coarse heavy particles
and work over into the zone with the coarse refuse, and
if the only separating action on a table were that of straight
stratification, this would result in fine coal getting over
into the refuse. Fortunately, however, hydraulic classifica-
tion occurs under settling conditions which tends to
counteract this and by proper use of water dilution and
wash water as well as riffle design the small light parti-
cles of coal are washed off with coarse light particles or
coarse coal."
1. Bird, B. M. The Sizing Action of A Coal-Washing Table. BuMines
Kept, of Inv. 2755, 1926, 18 pp.
Bird, B. M., and H. S. Davis. The Role of Stratification in the
Separation of Coal and Refuse on A Coal-Washing Table. BuMines
Rept. of Inv. 2950, 1929, 19 pp.
2. Zimmerman, R. E. The Cleaning of Fine Sizes of Bituminous Coal by
-------
Successive samples collected along the side and end of the table,
starting at the head-motion end, show a steady increase in ash
content and a steady decrease in the average particle size for
each individual specific-gravity fraction.
The concentrating table was divided into the following five sampl-
ing zones as shown in Figure iM-: Zone A for ultra clean coal, Zone B
for clean coal, Zone C for high ash coal, Zone D for refuse, and Zone E
for pyrite. In addition to the adjustable division shown between the
pyrite and refuse zones (Zones E and D), provisions were made so that a
black and white separation could be effected by bringing the high carbon
refuse from Zone D back around the corner of the table into Zone C.
This black and white separation is also referred to as a rough cleaning
operation since only the obvious impurities are removed from the R.O.M.
coal. An electropneumatic sampling system, Figure 15, was set up so
that samples could be automatically obtained once stable and desired
operating conditions had been established. Figure l6 shows the control
panel for the cleaning plant; Figure 17, the floor sump for general
cleanup; and Figure 18, the pressure filter for dewatering the samples.
2. Test Procedure
As previously mentioned, of the seventy coals analyzed during the
course of the program, six were chosen for table tests based on pyritic
sulfur removal when reduced to minus 30 mesh in size and cleaned at
1.60 specific gravity. Table 6 shows the chemical data for these six
coals. Since only total sulfur analyses were obtained on the various
samples from the concentrating table runs, the data are presented to
give a general idea of the organic sulfur content of the coals subse-
quently tested.
The 3/8 inch x 0 size consist was prepared by passing the R.O.M.
coal through a Jeffrey Hammer Mill, shown in Figure 19. The oversize
was screened out, recrushed, and remixed into the total sample. Large
pieces of slate were crushed in a jaw crusher and also remixed into the
sample after it had been reduced to minus 3/8 inch in size.
The 30 mesh x 0 grinds were prepared by single-stage pulverization
in a Pulva-Sizer Hammer Mill. Both the jaw crusher and the Pulva-Sizer
Hammer Mill are shown in Figure 20.
When the 3/8 inch x 0 runs were conducted so as to obtain a black
and white separation (rough cleaning), the coal fraction was accumulated
in the storage bins, allowed to further dewater or dry for several days,
and then pulverized to a topsize of 30 mesh for second-stage cleaning.
The sampling period of the automatic sampling device previously de-
scribed was adjustable between 0 and 60 seconds with the increment being
every minute or multiple thereof. In actual practice, a 10-second
sampling period every two minutes was found satisfactory for a 15-minute
-------
r r r
i i r
r
Feed
Sampling
Zones
T T
Chemical Analysis* Chemical Analysis*
*Note: Chemical Analysis Consists of Moisture,
Ash, and Total Sulfur Plus Ultimate
Carbon on 2.95 Sink Fractions
ZoneE
Pyrite
Zone A
Ultra Clean Coal
Float-Sink at 2.95 sp. gr.
Float, Sink
I I
Chemical Analysis*
Zone D
Refuse
Float-Sink at
1.60 and 2.95 sp. gr,
T 1.60 Float, 1.60 x 2.95, 2.95 Sink
Float-Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float, Sink
Chemical Analysis*
Chemical Analysis*
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G22
I I
-------
-p-
(6070P22)
-------
(6070P33)
Figure 16. Operation Control Panel and Product Sampling for Concentrating
-------
1*6.
(6070P48)
Figure 17. Sump Pump Used for General Clean-up of
-------
(6070P43)
-------
oo
TABLE 6. ANALYSES OF COALS SELECTED FOR CONCENTRATING TABLE TESTS
Coal Identification
Seam
County, State
Lower Freeport
Armstrong, Pa.
No. 6-A
Harrison, Ohio
Upper Freeport
Westmoreland, Pa.
No. 8
Jefferson, Ohio
BCR
Lot
No.
1771
1735
1750
1768
Weight Percent,
Total
Ash Sulfur
12.8 2.54
10.4 2.50
22.5 3.7^
19.4 4.71
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.07
Dry Basis
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.89
1.86
3.22
3.69
Organic
Sulfur
0.65
0.63
0.49
0.95
Organic Sulfur
as Percent
of Total Sulfur
25.6
25.2
13.1
20.2
No. 6
Columbiana, Ohio
1745 10.4 2.44 0.05 1.79 0.6o
24.6
Lower Kittanning
Indiana, Pa.
1755 20.1 4.66 0.05 4.00 0.61
-------
(6070P17)
-------
(6070P18)
-------
51.
The analyses obtained on the five zone samples are also shown in
Figure l4. The coal obtained from the two clean coal zones was as-
sumed to be 100 percent 1.60 float material. A 1.60 specific gravity
separation was made on the high ash coal from Zone C for two reasons.
In the conventional 3/8 inch x 0 runs and in all the 30 mesh x 0 runs
it was necessary to know the quantity of misplaced material (1.60 sink)
present in the high ash clean coal zone, as an indicator of efficiency.
With the black and white separations, it was possible to ascertain the
potential 1.60 table separation by compositing the analyses of Zones A
and B with the 1.60 float material from Zone C. Zone D material, pri-
marily high ash coal and/or shale, was subjected to float-sink analyses
at 1.60 and 2.95 specific gravity in order to determine the misplaced
1.60 float material from Zone C (coal) and misplaced 2.95 sink material
from Zone E (pyrite). The pyrite zone, Zone E, was subjected to gravity
separation at a 2.95 specific gravity to determine the misplaced float
material (shale) from Zone D.
In addition to these samples, a feed sample was taken for all of
the runs. A screen analysis was made on one split of the sample. The
screen analyses for the 3/8 inch x 0 R.O.M. coal are shown in Table 7
while the 30 mesh x 0 screen analyses are shown in Table 8. Chemical
analyses were obtained on a second split of the feed samples. The
chemical analyses of the feed samples were then compared to the weighted
composite of the chemical analyses of all of the fractions obtained
from the table as shown in Figure 14. Table 9 shows, for single-stage
cleaning, the zones and the number of fractions utilized to obtain the
various composites contained in Appendix B, Tables B-l to B-19- When
two-stage cleaning was performed, the weighted composite obtained for
the feed material was compiled by combining the chemical data of the
discarded material (white fraction) from the 3/8 inch x 0 roughclean-
ing run, with the data of the fractions produced by recleaning the coal
fraction after it had been pulverized to 30 mesh.
A typical data sheet for a single-stage 3/8 inch x 0 rough clean-
ing run is shown in Table 10. The composites were made in the same
manner as described for the Phase I evaluations. In the Phase I eval-
uations the feed was mathematically reconstituted by combining the
analysis of the 1.60 float material and the 1.60 sink material on a
weighted basis. In the Phase II evaluations the feed analysis was re-
constituted by combining nine different sets of analyses on a weighted
basis (Table 9? Column l) and compared to the actual chemical analysis
of a feed sample taken during the run.
The chemical analyses of the actual separation (Table "?, Column 2)
was obtained by mathematically combining the material from Zones A, B,
and C on a 100 percent basis. The same procedure was also used to ob-
tain the chemical analysis of the 1.60 float material (Table 9, Column 3)«
When two-stage cleaning was performed, the weighted composite ob-
-------
TABLE 7. SCREEN ANALYSES OF R.O.M. 3/8 DJCH x 0 FEED TO CONCENTRATING TABLE
Lot No.
1866
1950
2012
Seam
Run No.
Type of Run
Lower Freeport
2
1.6o Cleaning
Ohio 6-A
2
Rough Cleaning
Upper Freeport
1
Rough Cleaning
Screen Size
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
+ I/if Inch
1/4 Inch x 6 Mesh
6 Mesh x 12 Mesh
12 Mesh x 0
6.1
25.5
24.1
44.3
6.1
31.6
55.7
100.0
5.0
24.1
24.4
146.5
5.0
29.1
53.5
100.0
2.8
16.9
22.4
57.9
2.8
19.7
42.1
-------
TABLE 7. SCREEN ANALYSES OF R.O.M. 3/8 INCH x 0 FEED TO CONCENTRATING TABLE (continued)
Lot No.
2013
2031
2026
Seam
Run No.
Type of Run
Ohio No. 8
1
Rough Cleaning
Lower Kittanning
1
Rough Cleaning
Ohio No. 6
Rough
1
Cleaning
Screen Size
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
-i- 1/4 Inch
1/4 Inch x 6 Mesh
6 Mesh x 12 Mesh
12 Mesh x 0
M
25.5
25.8
43.8
4.9
30.4
56.2
100.0
2.5
11.8
16.7
69.0
2.5
14.3
31.0
100.0
4.4
22.2
25.8
47.6
4.4
26.6
52.4
100.0
Ul
-------
TABLE 8. SCREEN ANALYSES OF 30 MESH x 0 FEED TO CONCENTRATING TABLE
Lot No.
1866*
1950
2012
+
30
50
Seam
Run No.
Type of Run
Screen Size
30 Mesh
Mesh x 50 Mesh
Mesh x 100 Mesh
100 Mesh x 0
Lower
R
Weight,
Percent
2.7
26.0
26.0
^5.3
Freeport
2
.O.M
Cumulative
Weight,
Percent
2.7
28.7
5^.7
100.0
Ohio 6-A
2
Precleaned at
3/8 inch x 0
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
6.8 6.8
31-9 38.7
2U.2 62.9
37.1 100.0
Upper
Freeport
1
Precleaned at
3/8 inch x 0
Weight ,
Percent
3-5
33.6
29.5
33.^
Cumulative
Weight ,
Percent
3-5
37.1
66.6
100.0
-------
TABLE 8. SCREEN ANALYSES OF 30 MESH x 0 FEED TO CONCENTRATING TABLE (continued)
Lot No.
2012
2031
2026
Seam
Run No.
Type of Run
Screen Size
+ 30 Mesh
30 Mesh x 50 Mesh
50 Mesh x 100 Mesh
100 Mesh x 0
Ohio No. 8
1
Pre cleaned at
3/8 inch x 0
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
h.2 k.2
3^.6 38.8
2U.1 62.9
37.1 100.0
Lower Kit tanning
1
Pre cleaned at
3/8 inch x 0
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
0.3 0.3
18.1 18.1+
31.7 50.1
1*9.9 loo.o
Ohio No. 6
1
Pre cleaned at
3/8 inch x 0
Cumulative
Weight, Weight,
Percent Percent
3-7 3.7
32.6 36.3
26.3 62.6
37. ^ 100.0
-------
56.
TABLE 9. ZONES AMD FRACTIONS* UTILIZED TO
OBTAIN COMPOSITES OF TABLE TESTS
Feed to
Table Actual 1.6o
Single Stage* Separation Separation
A A A
B B B
C 1.60F C C 1.60F
C 1.60S D 1.60F
D 1.60F
D 1.60 X 2.95
D 2.95S
E 2.95F
E 2.953
-------
57.
TABLE 10. SAMPLE COPY OF CONCENTRATING TABLE DATA SHEET
FOR 3/8 INCH x 0 ROUGH CLEANING RUN
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 1950
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
*+7.9
37.3
5.2
l.U
6.6
0.4
6.7
0.8
7.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
91.8
90.8
1.0
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
79.0
21.0
100.0
U.6
81+. Q
10.5
100.0
21+.7
75.3
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.17
1.1+6
1.21
0.36
1.03
0.60
1.1+3
0.38
1.28
1.56
0.33
0.63
1.28
1.29
0.37
1.28
2.61+
Ash
6.12
6.36
11.8
39.5
17.62
18.1
7U.2
62.2
70.36
81+. 2
61+. 9
69.67
7.05
6.59
62.7U
12.23
12.0
Total
Sulfur
1.72
1.98
1+.02
12.3
5.76
l+. 88
6.1+8
39.2
9.8U
5.09
1+1.8
32.73
2.12
1.97
39.72
2.82
2.90
Ultimate
Carbon
9.5
U.8
1+.6
1+.65
8.52
-------
58.
of the discarded material (white fraction) from the 3/8 inch x 0
rough-cleaning run, with the data of the fractions produced by reclean-
ing the coal fraction after it had been pulverized to 30 mesh. For
example, since in the rough cleaning operation at the 3/8 inch x 0 size
(Table 10) a 91.8 - 8.2 percent split was obtained between the black and
white fractions, the 91-8 percent black fraction became 100 percent of
the material pulverized to 30 mesh for recleaning. The recleaning of the
30 mesh x 0 black fraction was reported on a 100 percent basis as shown
in Table 11.
In order to relate the nine separate fractions obtained in this test
to the original feed coal, it was necessary to prorate the analyses of
the nine samples obtained over the 91•8 percent that this material orig-
inally represented and mathematically combine it with analyses of the
five different fractions obtained on the white or refuse portion of the
3/8 inch x 0 which represented 8.2 percent of the original material.
Table 12, therefore, is purely the mathematical recombination of the
chemical analyses of ik different samples, five from Zones D and E of the
3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning run from Table 10 and 9 from the 30 mesh x 0
cleaning run from Table 11.
Standard operating settings, recommended by the manufacturer, were
utilized in all test runs. A 1/2-inch stroke at 315 strokes per minute
was found acceptable for the 30 mesh x 0 runs, and a 3/^-inch stroke at
290 strokes per minute was acceptable for the 3/8 inch x 0 tests. An
end elevation of one inch (1/2 inch rise per four feet) was used for
both types of tests.
3. Summary of Results
The first coal processed was Lower Freeport seam coal. Two test
runs were conducted at an approximate separating gravity of 1.60, one on
3/8 inch x 0 size, and one on 30 mesh x 0 size. Most results obtained
were as expected; the one exception was the high ash content of the
30 mesh x 0 clean coal sample. This ash content was higher than that
from the clean coal sample obtained from the 3/8 inch x 0 run and con-
siderably higher than the ash obtained in the 1.60 float material from
the 30 mesh float-sink analyses.
It was felt that the high ash content of the 30 mesh x 0 clean coal
product from the table was caused by the selective ultra-fine pulveriza-
tion of the shales and their retention in the water that reports to the
clean coal side of the table.
To check this theory and to determine whether or not scalping off
the shale ahead of the size reduction to 30 mesh would eliminate the
problem, a series of four tests was set up for the second test coal, an
Ohio No. 6-A seam.
The first test was a conventional 3/8 inch x 0 run attempting a 1.60
-------
TABLE 11. SAMPLE COPY OF CONCENTRATING TABLE DATA SHEET
FOR 30 MESH x 0 CLEANING RUN
59.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 1950
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
82.2
12.8
0.39
0.01
O.I*
2.0
1.9
0.2
l*.l
0.02
0.1*8
0.5
95.1*
97.1*
0.68
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
96.7
3.3
100.0
1*8.6
1*5.1*
6.0
100.0
1*.3
95.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.00
1.00
0.86
0.50
0.85
0.6l
0.60
0.18
0.58
0.70
O.Ik
0.16
O.lk
0.15
0.15
0.16
2.67
Ash
5.20
6.03
9.21
50.8
10.58
17.7
5k.O
63.2
36.91
6k.5
63.7
63.73
5.33
5.59
63.56
6.92
6.52
Total
Sulfur
1.39
1.1*0
2.02
19.3
2.59
1*.09
11.1*
1*0.7
9.61
19. k
1*0.2
39.31
1.1*0
1.1*5
1*0. 3k
1.92
2.0l*
Ultimate
Carbon
6.1*
13.8
5.6
5.95
5.83
-------
6o.
TABLE 12. SAMPLE COPY OF CONCENTRATING TABLE DATA SHEET
SHOWING THE EFFECTS OF TWO-STAGE CLEANING
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUMTY, OHIO
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6/U/68) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (6/13/68)
BCR Sample No. 1930
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
75.1*
11.7
0.39
0.01
0.1*
2.3
8.1*
1.0
11.7
0.12
0.68
0.8
87.5
89.8
1.7
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
96.7
3.3
100.0
19.7
71.8
B.5
100.0
15.0
85.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moistur
0.00
1.00
0.86
0.50
0.85
0.61
1.25
0.3^
1.05
1.U2
0.20
0.38
O.ll*
0.15
0.28
0.25
2.6U
Ash
5.20
6.03
9.21
50.8
10.58
17.77
69.91
62. to
59.00
80.91
6k. 05
66.58
5.33
5.65
63.07
12.10
12.0
Total
Sulfur
1.39
1.1*0
2.02
19.3
2.59
4.23
7.52
39-50
9.59
7.1*8
1*0.67
35.69
1.1*0
1.1*7
39.97
2.63
2.90
Ultimate
Carbon
».9
6.3
5.3
5.1*5
7.1*2
-------
61.
attempting a 1.60 separation. The third was a 3/8 inch x 0 scalping run
to effect a black and white separation. The feed for the fourth run was
obtained by crushing the black 3/8 inch x 0 fraction to 30 mesh and re-
cleaning it at 1.60 specific gravity. With the data obtained in the
third and fourth runs it was possible to relate the final 30 mesh x 0
clean coal product to the original 3/8 inch x 0 raw coal.
As expected, the ash in the clean coal from the single-stage clean-
ing was higher than the ash in the clean coal from the two-stage cleaning.
On the basis of the four runs with the Ohio 6-A coal it was decided to
clean the remaining four coals in two stages, with black and white sep-
aration at the 3/8 inch x 0 size and secondary cleaning of the black
fraction after reduction to 30 mesh in size.
The chemical data from the numerous table tests with the six dif-
ferent coals are presented in Tables 13 to 17. Table 13 shows the effect
of single-stage cleaning at 3/8 inch and 30 mesh topsize on the first
two coals studied. The effect of two-stage cleaning on reducing the ash
content of the clean coal at the 30 mesh topsize is shown in Table l4.
Table 15 presents additional data for the second coal tested, Ohio 6-A,
on the four runs, as well as the mathematical composite obtained from
the two-stage cleaning.
Table 16 compares the theoretical float-sink separation at 1.60
specific gravity to the actual separation obtained with the table, at
the 30 mesh x 0 size, for the last five coals tested. The effect of
two-stage cleaning of the same coals is shown in Table 1?.
Figure 21 shows the effect of single-stage cleaning for the first
two coals tested at the 3/8 inch x 0 size and the 30 mesh x 0 size. Both
coals show increased recovery and a greater sulfur reduction when they
are cleaned at the finer size (30 mesh x 0). The Lower Freeport exhibits
both the greater increase in recovery (longer line) and the greater re-
duction in total sulfur (less perpendicular slope).
Figure 22 compares single-stage to two-stage cleaning using the
Ohio 6-A seam coal at the 3/8 inch and 30 mesh topsizes. It should be
noted that the curve for single-stage cleaning is identical to the one
for the 6-A coal shown in the previous figure (Figure 21).
The results of two-stage cleaning of this coal are quite interesting.
The rough cleaning, or black and white separation at the 3/8 inch x 0
size, gave the expected results when compared to the 3/8 inch x 0 con-
ventional. The recovery increased and the percent of total sulfur
reduction decreased. The final recovery from the two-stage cleaning
looks rather poor, but this is not the case. The total sulfur reduction
was increased by approximately 13 percent over the comparative 30 mesh x 0
run on the R.O.M. coal. The high recovery shown for the 30 mesh x 0
single-stage cleaning is a false recovery since 2-1/2 percent of it is
-------
CA
ro
TABLE 13. CONCENTRATING TAELE TESTS
Effects of Single-stage Cleaning on Two Coals
Coal Identification
Seam
County State
Lower Freeport
Armstrong, Pa.
No. 6-A
Harrison, Ohio
BCR
Lot
No.
1866
1866
1950
1950
Feed Size
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
Feed
Rate
tph
2.05
l.OU
2.^2
1.01
Total Sulfur,
Feed
to Table*
2.1?
2.16
2.58
2.U4
Recovery,
Clean Coal
78.1
81*. 6
88.2
92.0
Total Sulfur,
Clean Coal
1.17
1.00
1.69
1.55
Total
Sulfur
Reduction
U6.1
53.7
3^-5
36.5
-------
TABLE Ik. CONCENTRATING TABLE TESTS
Chemical Analyses Comparison Between 1.60 Theoretical Cleaning and Concentrating
Table Cleaning for Two Coals at 30 Mesh x 0 Size
Coal Identification
Seam
County, State
Lower Freeport
Arms t rong , Pa .
No. 6- A
Harrison, Ohio
BCR
Lot
No.
1771
1866
1735
1950
1950
Method
Float-Sink Analysis
Single-Stage Cleaning
Float-Sink Analysis
Single-stage Cleaning
Two- Stage Cleaning
Weight
Percent,
Dry Basis
Recovery, Ash, Total Sulfur,
Clean Coal Clean Coal Clean Coal
8U.5
8k.6
86.6
92.0
87.5
6.k6
11.96
k.kz
7.82
5.33
0.9^
1.00
0.90
1.55
I.kO
-------
a\
TABLE 15. CONCENTRATING TABLE TESTS
Comparison Between Single-stage and Two-stage Cleaning on Ohio No. 6-A Seam
at Nominal
Topsize of Coal
BCR Lot No. 1950
Single-stage Cleaning
Weight Percent, Dry Basis
Feed Size
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
Two-stage Cleaning
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
Composite
Total Sulfur,
Feed to Table*
2.58
2.4U
2.82
1.92
2.82
Recovery,
Clean Coal
88.2
92.0
91.8
95-^
87.5
Total Sulfur,
Clean Coal
1.69
1.55
2.12
1.1*0
l.*K)
Total Sulfur
Reduction
3^.5
36.5
2^.8
27.1
50.^
-------
TABLE 16. CONCENTRATING TABLE TESTS
Comparison Between 1.60 Theoretical Cleaning and Two-stage Concentrating
Table Cleaning at 30 Mesh x 0 Size
Weight Percent, Dry Basis
Coal Identification
Seam
County State
No. 6-A
Harrison, Ohio
Upper Freeport
Westmoreland, Pa.
No. 8
Jefferson, Ohio
No. 6
Columbiana, Ohio
Lower Kittanning
Indiana, Pa.
BCR
Lot
No.
1735
1950
1750
2012
1768
2013
1745
2026
1755
2031
Method
Float -sink Analysis
Concentrating Table
Float-sink Analysis
Concentrating Table
Float -sink Analysis
Concentrating Table
Float -sink Analysis
Concentrating Table
Float-sink Analysis
Concentrating Table
Total
Sulfur,
Feed
2.50
2.82
3.74
3-34
4.71
3.83
2.44
4.38
4.66
4.77
Recovery,
Clean Coal
86.6
87.5
70.2
81.4
74.0
87.4
85.7
90.7
70.6
78.8
Total
Sulfur,
Clean Coal
0.90
1.1*0
1.07
1.07
2.79
2.72
0.76
1.65
1.32
1.54
Total
Sulfur
Reduction
64.0
50.4
71.4
68.0
40.8
29.0
68.9
62.3
71.7
67.7
cr\
-------
TABLE 17. CONCENTRATING TABLE TESTS
Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
cr\
Weight Percent, Dry Basis
Coal Identification
Seam
County State
No. 6-A
Harrison, Ohio
Upper Freeport
Westmoreland, Pa.
No. 8
Jefferson, Ohio
No. 6
Columbiana, Ohio
Lower Kittanning
Indiana, Pa.
BCR
Lot
No.
1950
1950
2012
2012
2013
2013
2026
2026
2031
2031
Feed Size
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
Feed
Rate
tph
2.39
1.13
2.66
1.09
2.85
• 99
2.62
1.00
2.55
.82
Total
Sulfur,
Feed
to Table
2.82
3.34
3.83
4.38
4.77
Recovery,
Clean Coal
91.8
87.5**
84.9
81.4**
92.4
87.4**
94.4
90.7**
83.5
78.8**
Total Sulfur,
Clean Coal
2.12
1.40
1.76
1.07
3.29
2.72
2.57
1.65
1.98
1.54
Total
Sulfur
Reduction
24.8
50.4
47.3
68.0
14.1
29.0
41.3
62.3
58.5
67.7
* Composite of Table Products
-------
67-
O
100-
98-
96-
94-
92-
90-
o 88-
Q
g
°: 86H
O
u
84-
z
UJ
O 82-
80-
78-
76
i
10
No. 6-A
• 3/8 Inch x 0
o 30 Mesh x 0
Lower Freeport
i
50
60
i
70
20 30 40
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
80
i
90
100
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G23
Figure 21. Concentrating Table Tests—Effects of Single-stage Cleaning
-------
68.
lOO-i
98-
96-
94H
ee
£ 92-|
O
uj 9Q-
y sa-
^ 861
O
I *
u 82-
80-
78-
76
Two-stage Cleanhg
hlg\
Cleanin9
3/8 Inch x 0
30 Mesh x 0
10 20
i
30
i
40
SO
\
60
i
70
80
90
100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G24
Figure 22. Comparison between Single-stage and Two-stage Cleaning on
-------
69.
In Figure 23, a graphic comparison is made of the five coals tested
by two-stage cleaning. The general clustering of the three Ohio coals
in one area of the graph and the clustering of the two Pennsylvania coals
in another area is significant. The lateral displacement is in part
caused by the higher organic sulfur content of the Ohio coals, and the
vertical displacement would indicate that the Pennsylvania coaJ s
contained more rock in the R.O.M. coal. All five coals exnibited about
the same loss of recovery between the 3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning runs
and the 30 mesh x 0 runs, as indicated by the length of the lines on the
graph. The Lower Kittanning coal showed the least beneficiation from
the two-stage cleaning and the No. 6-A seam from Ohio the greatest, as
shown by the slope of the lines.
The information contained in Figure 2k, comparing the Phase I re-
sults with those from two-stage cleaning, is also interesting. In all
cases, the recovery obtained from two-stage cleaning was better than
that obtained from the float-sink tests in Phase I. Table 16 shows that
some of the difference can be explained by the differences in chemical
analyses between the lots of coals utilized for the tests in the two
phases of work. The chemical composition of the coal changed slightly
during the long lapse of time between the time Commercial Testing ob-
tained their samples for the Phase I testing and that when BCR obtained
the samples for Phase II testing. The differences in recovery are also
accompanied by the expected differences in total sulfur reduction.
With the exception of the tests with the No. 6 seam, the predicted
sulfur in the clean coal obtained by the Phase I float-sink tests compares
very favorably to the total sulfur obtained in the clean coal produced
from the two-stage cleaning of the coals on the concentrating table.
In addition to the tests described, four of the coals were rough-
cleaned at the 3/8 inch x 0 size to prepare a 30 mesh x 0 black fraction
for testing the concentrating spiral and the compound water cyclone.
The results of these four runs are contained in Appendixes C and D,
Attachments C-ll, 16, 21, 26, and D-2, 5, 8, 11. With exception
again of the Ohio No. 6 seam coal (Lot No. 2026), the duplication between
the 3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning runs from the same coal lot was excellent.
A complete list of actual concentrating tests, cross-referenced by
BCR lot number and attachment number, is shown in Table 18. Run date
and feed rates are also shown.
C. Compound Water Cyclone
1. Description of Theory of Operation
Figure 25 shows the internal construction of a typical compound
water cyclone. The following information from a manufacturer's brochure
-------
70.
lOO-i
98-
96-
94-
O
92-
90-
u 88
o
O
Of
O
82-
80-
78-
76
No. 6
No. 8
Upper Freeport
Lower Kittanning
• 3/8 Inch x 0
o 30 Mesh x 0
10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G25
-------
71.
Of
111
a.
i-
O
LU
I-T
u
a
92-i
90-
88-
86-
84-
82-
80-
g *
u
z
< 76
74-
72-
70
No. 6
o No. 6-A°-
No. 8
Upper Freeport
Lower Kittanning
1.60 Float
Two-stage Cleaning
I
10
20
I
30
I
40
I
50
I
60
I
70
I
80
90 100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G26
Figure 24. Concentrating Table Tests—Comparison between 1.60 Theoretical
-------
ro
TABLE 18. LIST OF CONCENTRATING TABLE RONS
Concentrating Table Evaluations
Attachment Feed Rate
Lot No. B No. Description Date Run (ib/hr) tph
1866 B-2 Raw 30 M x 0 5-13-68 20?6 I.Ok
1866 B-l Raw 3/8 Inch x 0 5-1^-68 4105 2.05
1950 B-3 Raw 3/8 Inch x 0 5-28-68 h8k2 2.^2
1950 B-5 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 6- 4-68 hllQ 2.39
1950 E-k Raw 30 M x 0 6- 5-68 2016 1.01
1950 B-6 Precleaned 30 M x 0 6-13-68 2256 1.13
2012 B-8 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 6-25-68 5316 2.66
2013 B-ll 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 6-28-68 56911 2.85
2012 B-9 Precleaned 30 M x 0 7- 2-68 2172 1.09
2013 B-12 Precleaned 30 M x 0 7- 5-68 197*4- 0.99
2031 B-17 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 7-18-68 5106 2.55
2031 B-18 Precleaned 30 M x 0 7-2^-68 1632 0.82
2026 B-14 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 7-29-68 5238 2.62
2026 B-15 Precleaned 30 M x 0 7-31-68 2006 1.00
Concentrating Spiral and Compound Water Cyclone Evaluations
2031 C-ll, D-2 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 10-11-68 5355 2.68
2026 C-16, D-5 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 10-18-68 kShh 2.te
2012 C-21, D-8 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough 11- 6-68 5110 2.56
-------
73.
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G43
-------
The cross section view of the compound water cyclone demon-
strates the separation of raw coal into two products—(l)
clean, low-ash coal and (2) refuse that is high in sulfur,
ash, and pyrite.
A coal/water pulp enters the central feed chamber through
the cycloidal inlet. The cycloidal configuration of the
inlet imparts an initial circular motion to the pulp and
partial centrifugal separation begins within the nozzle
itself.
Particles of different sizes and specific gravity form a
hindered settling bed in the first conical section (A).
Light, coarse particles are prevented from penetrating the
lower strata of this bed by the coarse, heavy fractions
(middlings and refuse) and by the fine particles filling
the interstices of the bed. Consequently, the water—
passing from the periphery of the cyclone toward its main
outlet (the vortex finder)--erodes the top of the strati-
fied bed and substantially removes the light, coarse
particles via the central current around the air core
(vortex).
The remainder of the bed—without measurabley losing its
stratified character—is forced into the second conical
section (B) by the mass of new feed entering the cyclone.
Here, the central current is much stronger and further
erodes the top of the bed, exposing the middlings. The
light middlings are swept up and discharged via the vortex
finder. The heavy middlings that spiral upward in the cen-
tral current of departing water may by-pass the orifice of
the lower vortex finder owing to their higher specific
gravity. Consequently, the coarse, heavy middlings fraction
tends to recirculate to the stratified bed and finally enters
the third conical section (C).
In this last and smaller conical section, the bed is finally
destroyed as coarse particles fan out along the cyclone wall
in a single layer, exposing the small particles that so far
have been shielded from the central current. The central
current of departing water in this smallest section is rel-
atively weak, having spent itself in the preceding sections.
The upward current that remains separates the small particles
from the remainder of the material, with preference for those
of low specific gravity. Thus, the fine, light particles are
finally discharged through the vortex finder by a process of
elutriation. The refuse, fine as well as coarse, is dis-
charged through the apex. The separation thus takes place in
-------
75.
The cut point can be set at a higher or lower specific gravity
by changing the settings of the cyclone in accordance with the
nature of the raw material and the requirements of the user.
2. Test Setup and Procedure
Considerable time was devoted to developing the test procedure for
the compound water cyclone. The first step in preparing the coal for the
test work with the first coal was, of course, rather straightforward and
consisted of pulverizing the feed coal to minus 30 mesh in size. The
first set of tests was conducted with the Ohio 6-A seam in the R.O.M.
condition. The feed material for the remaining four tests was prepared
by pulverizing the black fraction of the 3/8 inch x 0 rough-cleaning run
from the concentrating table to minus 30 mesh in size. This approach
paralleled the two-stage cleaning with the concentrating table.
Batch tests were conducted in all cases, but an elaborate mixing
system had to be devised to insure that the feed to the cyclone was con-
stant at all times. The principle that made the mixing circuit necessary
is important, and can best be explained by using a simple, closed circuit,
slurry handling system consisting of a pump, a slurry sump, and a "U"-
shaped pipe between the pump discharge and the sump. If a mixture of coal
and pyrite is prepared into a slurry of known specific gravity, placed in
the sump and circulated, the specific gravity of the slurry discharging
back to the sump will increase slowly. This is due to the fact that the
circulating portion of the slurry will build up with the heavier parti-
cles (pyrite) and the larger pieces of coal, since they settle very fast
in the sump and return directly to the suction side of the pump.
Figure 26 shows a portion of the mixing circuit set up for tests
with the compound water cyclone and subsequently used in the spiral con-
centrator testing.
The primary modification made to the mixing circuit was the addition
of a second pump and recirculating circuit which ran continuously while
the original pump supplied the feed material to the triclone. Figure 27
shows the original mixing circuit while Figure 28 shows the final version
of this circuit.
The compound water cyclone is shown in Figure 29 with a portion of
the sampling chutes in the foreground.
The complete compound water cyclone circuit is shown in Figure 30,
and the sampling and analytical flow diagram is shown in Figure 31-
The sampler was designed so that the overflow and underflow were
sampled for the same period of time and at the same time. One increment
was obtained, but the total sample was a rather high percentage of total
-------
76.
(6070P29)
Figure 26. Slurry Feed Mixing Cone for Compound Water
-------
77.
Mixing Cone
(55 Gallon Drum)
X
Sump
Pump
Compound Water
Cyclone
Overflow
Underflow
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G41
-------
78.
Recycle
Valve
Sump Level
Control
Valve
Test Run
Va|ve , r
\
\
I
1
T
•D
Mixer
Air Sparge
Mixing Cone
- Recycle Circuit
(Mixing)
--- Run Circuit
Centrifugal Pump
Recycle Circuit
Mixing Cone Drain
Pressure
Gauge
^Cyclone Overflow
(Clean Coal Produet)
CW6-4
Sump
Centrifugal Pump
Recycle and Cleaning
Circuit
1
Cyclone Underflow
(Refuse)
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G42
-------
79-
(6070P23)
Figure 29. Compound Water Cyclone with Sampling
-------
80.
(6070P20)
Figure 30. View of the Complete Compound Water Cyclone Circuit with
-------
81.
Feed
Underflow Products
(Refuse)
Float-Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float Sink
1 I
Chemical Analysis*
Overflow Product
(Clean Coal)
Float-Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float Sink
I I
Chemical Analysis*
''Chemical Analysis Consists
of Moisture, Ash, and
Total Sulfur
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G27
-------
82.
Table 19 is a typical data sheet used for both the single-stage and
two-stage compound water cyclone tests. For single-stage cleaning of the
R.O.M. coal, the total sulfur reduction could be calculated directly from
the data on this sheet. Although the sample of data presented was for
two-stage cleaning, the total sulfur reduction for single-stage cleaning
would have been calculated as follows: The entire overflow from the .
cyclone constitutes the clean coal fraction and the total sulfur in the
clean coal was 1.59 percent. The total sulfur in the feed is obtained
from the composite of the cyclone products, or 1.8l percent. Thus, the
total sulfur reduction would have been 12.2 percent.
With two-stage cleaning, a second data sheet was necessary and this
sheet is shown in Table 20. The basic mechanics for calculating the
final total sulfur reduction obtained for two-stage cleaning is identical
to that utilized in the concentrating table tests. This reduction is
obtained by starting with the total sulfur content of the R.O.M. coal as
fed to the concentrating table in the rough cleaning operation, or 2.90
percent in this example. Sulfur content of the final clean coal product
from the compound water cyclone in the example was 1.59 percent, a re-
duction of ^5-2 percent.
3- Summary of Results
The first set of tests was conducted on the R.O.M. Ohio 6-A coal at
the 30 mesh x 0 size. The results are shown in Table 21. In the fol-
lowing table, Table 22, the results from two compound water cyclone runs
are compared to the 30 mesh x 0, R.O.M., concentrating table run.
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATING TABLE RUN AND COMPOUND
WATER CYCLONE RUN WITH 30 MESH x 0, R.O.M., OHIO NO. 6-A SEAM
Total Sulfur Total Sulfur
in Feed, Recovery, Reduction,
Cleaning Unit Weight Percent Weight Percent Weight Percent
Compound Water Cyclone
(Test No. 3, Run No. 6) 2.kj 91.^ 21.1
Compound Water Cyclone
(Test No. 2, Run No. 2) 2.39 90.9 27.6
-------
83-
TABLE 19. SAMPLE COPY OF DATA SHEET
FOR COMPOUND WATER CYCLONE TEST
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM. COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0. Test No. 6.
Run No. 1 BCR Sample No. 20 56
Operating Conditions:
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure 5
Dry Feed, tph 0.7
1 in.
Specific Gravity, Pulp 1.02
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm 3^.2
Specific Gravity, Solids 1.35
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
90. U
3.0
93. **
5.7
0.9
6.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
96.8
3.2
100.0
86.3
13.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
3.7^
Ul.6
^.95
5.36
52.6
11.83
5.UO
5.52
Total Sulfur
1.06
17.6
1.59
1.32
27.2
U.87
1.81
1.77
-------
Qk.
TABLE 20. SAMPLE COPY OF DATA SHEET SHOWING EFFECTS
OF TWO-STAGE CLEANING WITH THE CONCENTRATING TABLE
AND COMPOUND WATER CYCLONE
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COLIMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
BCR Sample No..
20 g6
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-18-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
9U.1
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7.93
5.39
Total Sulfur
2.90
1.92
Weight % Reduction
Ash
32.0
Total
Sulfur
33.8
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 6. Run No. 1 Run Date.
12-10-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight io
100.0
93. U
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight io
Ash
5.^0
U.95
Total Sulfur
1.81
1.59
Weight % Reduction
Ash
8.3
Total
Sulfur
12.2
Two-Stage
Clean Coal
Product
87-9
1.59
37.6
-------
TABLE 21. COMPOUND WATER CYCLONE TESTS - SINGLE-STAGE CLEANING
No. 6-A Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0,
BCR Sample No. 1950
Total Sulfur,
in Feed* Total Sulfur Reduction, Clean Coal Product,
Test and Run Weight Percent Weight Percent Weight Percent
Test No. 1, Run No. 2 2.26 22.6 93.1
Test No. 1, Run No. 3 2.36 l6.5 97.0
Test No. 1, Run No. h 2.11 22.3 75.6
Test No. 2, Run No. 1 2.35 2^.7 88.0
Test No. 2, Run No. 2 2.U7 21.1 91.h
Test No. 2, Run No. 3 2.57 2U.5 89.3
Test No. 3, Run No. 3 2.00 10.0 97-7
Test No. 3, Run No. h 3.05 29.5 95.k
Test No. 3, Run No. 5 2.28 20.6 95.7
Test No. 3, Run No. 6 2.39 2?.6 90.9
* Based on Composite of Cyclone Products
OD
-------
86.
Table 22 shows that the concentrating table did a better cleaning
job than the compound water cyclone. It should be pointed out, however,
that a closer-sized feed or feeds to the compound water cyclone, i.e.,
30 mesh x 200 mesh and 200 mesh x 0, could have yielded improved results
in total sulfur reduction.
The remaining four coals were precleaned on the concentrating table
and second-stage cleaned in the compound water cyclone under two dif-
ferent sets of operating conditions. The results obtained with the first
set of operating conditions are shown in Table 23. The data are plotted
in Figure 32. Similar data are shown in Table 2k and Figure 33. The
results from the No. 1 runs were far superior to those from the No. 2
runs; the recovery was much higher with approximately the same total
sulfur reduction.
The complete data on the compound water cyclone test work can be
found in Appendix C, Tables C-l to C-30.
D. Concentrating Spiral
1. Description and Theory of Operation
The following description of the spiral and its theory of operation
has been taken directly from one of the instruction manuals provided by
the manufacturer of the concentrating spiral, as follows:
The spiral is a conduit of modified semicircular cross
section. Pulp is fed to the top and, as it flows downward,
the heavier particles concentrate in a band along the inner
side of the pulp stream. Ports for the removal of the
heavy products are located at the lowest point in the cross
section of the conduit. Wash water, added at the inner edge
of the stream, flows outwardly across the concentrate band.
The width of concentrate band removed at the ports is con-
trolled by adjustable splitters. Concentrate (or refuse,
when speaking of fine coal cleaning) is usually removed
from the upper portion of the spiral and middling from the
lower. Ore tailing (or clean coal) is discharged from the
lower end of the spiral conduit. This lower end discharge
may be divided by an adjustable splitter into two products:
in ore separation, a slime tailing and a sand tailing; in
coal separation, a clean coal product plus slime and a mid-
dling product. (Figure 3^)
The following comment is quoted from an article in March,
19^5j Engineering and Mining Journal, pp. 85, 86, by
George W. Gleeson, Dean, School of Fjigineering and Indus-
-------
TABLE 23. CONCENTRATING TABLE AND COMPOUND WATER CYCLONE TESTS
EFFECTS OF TWO-STAGE CLEANING
Run No. 1 Operating Conditions
Coal Identification
Lot Seam
2031 Lower
Kittanning
Location
County, State
Indiana,
Pennsylvania
Total Sulfur, Clean Coal,
Feed to Table* Two-stage Cleaning
Percent Percent
3.66
80.7
Total Sulfur Reduction,
Two-stage Cleaning
Percent
56.6
2026 No. 6
Columbiana,
Ohio
2.90
87.9
2012 Upper
Freeport
We stmoreland,
Pennsylvania
3.30
78.7
56.7
2013 No. 8
Jefferson,
Ohio
3.98
87.3
28.6
* Based on Composite of Table Products, Rough Cleaning
Run No. 1 Operating Conditions:
Cone Type "S," Vortex Finder Clearance: l", Inlet Pressure: 5 psi, Feed Solids Concentration: 8.(
00
-------
100-
98-
96-
z 94H ' N°'6
111
U
"L 92~
t-
o
s ""
•»
^ 88-
Q
° o CWC (30 Mesh x 0)
- 86H
No. 8 •
\
• Concentrating Table (3/8 Inch x 0)
u
z
Lower Kittanning
s\
80 H
° Upper Freeport
78 -\
76
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G28
Figure 32. Compound Water Cyclone Tests—Effects of Two-stage
-------
TABLE 21*. CONCENTRATING TABLE AND COMPOUND WATER CYCLONE TESTS
EFFECTS OF TWO-STAGE CLEANING
Coal Identification
Lot Seam
2031 Lower
Kittanning
Run No. 2 Operating Conditions
Total Sulfur Clean Coal Total Sulfur Reduction,
Location Feed to Table* Two-stage Cleaning Two-stage Cleaning
County, State Percent Percent Percent
Indiana,
Pennsylvania
3.66
73.2
57.9
2026 No. 6
Columbiana,
Ohio
2.90
80.3
1*1*.8
2012 Upper
Freeport
Westmoreland,
Pennsylvania
3.30
69.9
62.7
2013 No. 8
Jefferson,
Ohio
3.98
78.8
3^.7
*Based on Composite of Table Products, Rough Cleaning
Run No. 2 Operating Conditions:
Cone Type "M", Vortex Finder Clearance: 1", Inlet Pressure: 8 psi, Feed Solids Concentration: 8.(
-------
90.
1
96
94-
92 -
90-
i- 88 -
LU
U
at
£ 86 H
1 84 A
u 82 -
o
O
of 80 -
w 78 -
m
u 76-|
74 -
72 -
70 -
68
No. 8.
No. 6
i
10
Concentrating Table (3/8 Inch x 0)
CWC (30 Mesh x 0)
Lower Kittanning
Upper Freeport
20 30
40
50
60
70 80
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
90 100
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G29
Figure 33. Compound Water Cyclone Tests—Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
-------
Concentrate*
Center Collecting Pipe and Tubing
Tailing
Slime-
Splitter
Notch
Wash Water/'A
Channel
Splitter
Splitter
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G44
-------
92.
"Examination of the theory of operation of the
spiral concentrator indicates why a device of
such simplicity is capable in certain instances
of a higher efficiency than more elaborate
equipment.
As water flows down the spiral channel of modified
semicircular section, each element will be subjected
to a centrifugal force, tangential to the channel,
directly proportional to the square of the velocity
of flow and inversely proportional to the radius at
which the element is located. This centrifugal force
piles water up on the outer rim of the spiral until
the flowing stream reaches an equilibrium between
centrifugal force outward and gravitational force
downward. Once established, the position of the
stream is fairly constant for uniform pitch and
radius.
Velocity of the spiral stream decreases with depth
from its maximum just below the water surface until
it approaches zero velocity at contact with the
channel. The largest percentage decrease in velocity
will occur nearest to the channel contact, giving
rise to the 'fluid film1 concept that is well devel-
oped in hydrodynamic literature.
In any curved channel, whether a pipe or a river
bed, the bottom layer of water, retarded by friction,
has much less centrifugal force and consequently
will flow sidewise along the bottom toward the inner
bank of the curved channel, carrying with it the
heavier particles of sand. Simultaneously with this
bottom flow of water inward, the upper mass of water
must flow outward to replace it. There is, conse-
quently, besides the flow of water down the length of
the spiral, a flow of decreasing velocity downward and
across the channel to the inside, then upward and across
the channel to the inside, then upward and across the
channel to the top, progressively increasing in velocity
until friction again enters.
The foregoing rather complicated movement of the flow-
ing stream has been well established as existing at all
bends, and the spiral is simply an exaggeration of the
more commonly encountered case. The several flows and
forces combine to sort and concentrate any particles
which may be suspended in the stream. Oddly enough, a
-------
93.
The double spiral action in the flowing stream pro-
duces, as a final result, an idealized arrangement
of particles of variable densities that is common to
flowing-film type concentrators.
Particle size, within limits, is not a critical factor,
and no particular advantage is gained by prior classi-
fication. Once the idealized arrangement has been
established, it is a simple matter to remove concentrate
and middling through suitable openings located near the
inner radius of the spiral.
For particles of lower density, which sometimes are not
entirely lifted into the main stream at the inner radius
of the spiral, wash water is added at the inner edge of
the stream. This wash water tends to wash off lighter
material riding on the surface of the heavier and return
it to the concentration zone."
2. Test Setup and Procedure
Testing with the concentrating spiral was conducted in an almost
identical manner to that with the compound water cyclone. Batch tests
were conducted utilizing the continuous mixing circuit devised for the
compound water cyclone. An excellent overall view of the spiral can be
seen in Figure 30. Three samples were obtained from the spiral; a clean
coal product, a middling product, and a refuse product.
Figure 35 shows the pumping system and the three-pronged sampler
directly behind the pump sump. The sampling flow sheet is shown in
Figure 36. The clean coal and refuse fractions were handled the same
as those from the cyclone tests.
The middling material was further processed in an attempt to take
advantage of the reported concentration of fine clean coal and coarse
refuse material when processing 1/h inch x 0 coal with the spiral. A
100 mesh screen size was arbitrarily selected as the separating size,
and both oversize and undersize were subjected to float-sink analyses.
Five different coals were subjected to spiral tests. The Ohio 6-A
seam was tested at the 30 mesh x 0 size in the R.O.M. condition while
the other four coals were precleaned on the concentrating table at the
3/8 inch x 0 size.
3. Summary of Results
In the single-stage cleaning of the 30 mesh x 0, R.O.M., Ohio
No. 6-A coal, a 15.3 percent reduction in total sulfur was obtained with
-------
(6070P32)
-------
95-
Clean Coal
Float Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float Sink
I I
Chemical Analysis*
Feed
Middlings, Split at 100 Mesh
Refuse
Float Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float Sink
I I
Chemical Analysis*
Oversize Undersize
Float Sink at 1.60 sp. gr. Float Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float Sink Float Sink
I I ! I
Chemical Analysis* Chemical Analysis*
*Chemical Analysis Consists of Moisture,
Ash, and Total Sulfur
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G30
-------
96.
by combining both complete screen fractions of the middling material
with the clean coal, as shown in Table 25. The data shown are typical
for the four subsequent spiral runs utilizing two-stage cleaning. All
clean coal fractions contained a significant quantity of high ash, high
sulfur sink material. The middling oversize was cleaner than the under-
size. The refuse never exceeded 50 percent in 1.60 sink material.
Table 26 shows the total sulfur reduction and recovery obtained with the
four coals that had been precleaned on the concentrating table at the
3/8 inch x 0 size. The data are shown graphically in Figure 37. All
test data for the concentrating spiral are contained in Appendix D,
-------
97.
TABLE 25. SAMPLE COPY OF SPIRAL CONCENTRATOR TEST DATA SHEET
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Spiral Concentrator Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos. 9-2, 12-2, 15-2
Inlet Pressure, psi 9
Dry Feed, tph
Middling Split, mesh
TOT
100
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
21.6
. 6
1.1*0
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product,
Weight
Percent
69.3
3-8
73.1
13.9
0.9
11*. 8
6.0
0.9
6.9
2.9
2.3
5.2
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
91*. 8
5.2
100.0
93.7
6.3
100.0
87.0
13.0
100.0
55. 8
1*1*. 2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.30
39-30
8.0
6.13
39.^0
8.02
6.76
53.20
12.80
7.32
65.80
33.17
9.69
11.20
Total Sulfur
l.ll*
9.1*6
1.57
1.25
6.70
1.59
1.00
li*. 20
2.72
1.32
15.1*0
7.51*
1.96
2.51*
Run Date:
11-25-68
15.3 % Reduction in Total Sulfur at 9!*.8% Recovery.
-------
TABLE 26. CONCENTRATING TABLE AND SPIRAL CONCENTRATOR TESTS
EFFECTS OF TWO-STAGE CLEANING
CO
Coal Identification
Lot Seam
2031 Lower
Kittanning
Location
County, State
Indiana,
Pennsylvania
Total Sulfur, Clean Coal, Total Sulfur Reduction,
Feed to Table* Two-stage Cleaning Two-stage Cleaning
Percent Percent Percent
3.66
78.3
65.3
2026 No. 6
Columbiana,
Ohio
2.90
89.3
48.3
2012 Upper
Freeport
Westmoreland,
Pennsylvania
3.30
77.9
54.5
2013 No. 8
Jefferson,
Ohio
3.98
87.0
28.4
-------
99-
100
98-
96-
94-
K
5" 92H
O
90-
u 88H
Q
§"1
z *
111
d 82-
80-
78-
76
No. 6
No. 8
• Concentrating Table (3/8 Inch x 0)
° Spiral Concentrator (30 Mesh x 0)
Upper Freeport
Lower Kittanning
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION, PERCENT
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070G31
-------
101.
V. PHASE III EVALUATIONS
A. Test Procedure
The use of air classification as a means of removing pyrite from
the feed to the burners at power stations is an area of research work
pioneered by BCR. The process involves the air separation of a rela-
tively coarse grind of pulverized coal into a fine fraction suitable
for firing and a coarse, pyrite-rich fraction that requires further
processing. The pyrite can be removed from this coarse fraction using
conventional, wet-coal preparation equipment. The coarse, clean coal
fraction produced could then be further pulverized to produce addi-
tional burner feed. While this is an oversimplification of the BCR
process, it does outline the laboratory tests used to evaluate the
suitability of ten different coals selected from the first 30 tested
in the Phase I evaluations of this process.
Coal rank, level of sulfur reduction, seam importance, and the
producing company were all considered in selecting the coals for the
Phase III work.
The following two parameters were established to control the
pulverization of the coal and the air separation in the classifier.
1. The coarse fraction had to be between 30 and ho percent of
the feed. This represents a reasonable quantity to remove for wet
cleaning, so that the cleaned, dewatered fraction could be added
directly back to the pulverizer without thermal drying.
2. The fine fraction had to be similar to the pulverized coal
grind used at power stations.
Both coarse and fine fractions were subjected to float-sink tests
at 1.60 specific gravity. Recovery and analyses of the final, clean
coal product were obtained by compositing the coarse, clean coal frac-
tions with both fine coal fractions.
All ten air classification tests were conducted utilizing the
BCR-Majac air classifier shown in Figure 38.
One of the coals was also air-classified in an Alpine Zigzag air
classifier shown in Figures 39 and 40.
B. Summary of Results
Table 27 presents the results of the ten Majac air classification
tests for total sulfur reduction while Table 28 presents the same
information for pyritic sulfur reduction. Both sets of information
-------
(6070P2)
-------
103.
(6070P1)
-------
(6070P4)
-------
TABLE 27. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION IN MAJAC AIR CLASSIFICATION TESTS
Total Sulfur
Recovery
Total Sulfur in
*Majac product composed of raw fine coal plus cleaned coarse fraction
(1.60 specific gravity)
Total Sulfur
BCR
Lot No.
1752
1750
1771
1745
1770
1735
1730
1747
1757
1733
Seam
Upper
Kittanning
Upper
Freeport
Lower
Freeport
No. 6
Thick
Freeport
No. 6-A
No. 6
Lower
Kittanning
and Lower
Freeport
Freeport
No. 8
Rank
LV
HVA
HVA
HVB
HVB
HVB
HVC
m
m
HVC
in Raw Coal
Percent
2.71
3-74
2.54
2.1*
2.08
2.50
^. 72
2.42
2.52
4.58
Majac Product
Percent
90. 4
83-6
92.6
9^.3
90.9
93-2
92.2
90.7
77-5
87.6
Majac Product*
Percent
1.31
1.98
1.1+9
1.46
1.25
1.65
3.16
1.65
1-90
3.66
Reduction
Percent
51-7
47-1
41.3
40.2
39-1
34.0
33.1
31-8
24.6
20.1
o
-------
TABLE 28. PYRITIC SULFUR REDUCTION IN MAJAC AIR CLASSIFICATION TESTS
Pyritic Sulfur Recovery
Pyritic Sulfur in Pyritic Sulfur
BCR
Lot No.
1752
1750
1771
1745
1770
1735
1730
1747
1757
1733
Seam
Upper
Kittanning
Upper
Freeport
Lower
Freeport
No. 6
Thick
Freeport
No. 6-A
No. 6
Lower
Kittanning
and Lower
Freeport
Freeport
No. 8
Rank
LV
HVA
HVA
HVB
HVB
HVB
HVC
MV
MV
HVC
in Raw Coal,
Percent
2.31
3.22
1.89
1.79
1.68
1.86
3.70
1.84
2.16
2.84
Majac Product,
Percent
90.4
83.6
92.6
9^-3
90.9
93.2
92.2
90.7
77.5
87.6
Majac Product,*
Percent
0.94
1.48
0.98
1.01
0.92
0.98
2.17
1.08
1.39
1.95
Reduction,
Percent
59.3
54.0
48.1
43.6
45.2
47.3
41.4
41.3
35.6
31.3
-------
107.
100-
98-
96-
- 94H
£ 92H
O
Q
o
ot
90-
88-
84-
O
u
z
111
-------
108.
The results of the Alpine Zigzag classification tests are shown
in Table 29, and these data indicate that this classifier compares
favorably to the Majac in efficiency of separation with the one coal
tested.
The complete data from the Phase III testwork can be found in
-------
TABLE 29. SULFUR REDUCTION IN ALPINE ZIGZAG CLASSIFIER TESTS
A—Total Sulfur Reduction
BCR
Lot
No.
1733
Seam
No. 8
Rank
HVC
Total Sulfur
in Raw Coal,
Percent
Zigzag Product,
Percent
8U.1
Total Sulfur in
Zigzag Product,*
Percent
3.82
Total Sulfur
Reduction,
Percent
16.6
Zigzag product composed of raw fine coal plus cleaned
coarse fraction (l.6o specific gravity)
B—Pyritic Sulfur Reduction
BCR
Lot
No.
1733
Rank
HVC
Pyritic Sulfur
in Raw Coal,
Percent
Zigzag Product,
Percent
Pyritic Sulfur in
Zigzag Product,**
Percent
1.90
Pyritic Sulfur
Reduction,
Percent
33-1
** Zigzag product composed of raw fine coal plus cleaned
coarse fraction (l.6o specific gravity)
-------
TABIE A-l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification PITTSBURGH SEAM, MARION COMITY, WEST VIRGINIA
Raw Run-of-MLne Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-lll.
1725
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.15
Ash
9.1*6
Volatile
Matter
38.2
Fixed
Carbon
52.3
Total
Sulfur
2.3
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.07
Organic
Sulfur
1.20
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,677
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
'Float at 1.60 87.1
Sink at 1.60 .12.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.22
1*0.2
9-73
Total
Sulfur
1.57
7.98
2.1*0
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.36
7.00
1.22
Pyritic
Sulfur
66.lt
Total
Sulfur
31.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86.2
Sink at 1.60 13.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.00
38.8
9.66
Total
Sulfur
1.1*2
7.98
2.33
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.23
7.11*
1.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
78.5
Total
Sulfur
38.3
-------
A-112.
TABLE A-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identic ration NO. 9 SEAM MINE. MORGAN COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Bun-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1728
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
3.29
Ash
21.4
Volatile
Matter
38.1
Fixed
Carbon
40.5
Total
Sulfur
5.35
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.0k
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.92
Organic
Sulfur
2.39
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,072
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 74.4
Sink at 1.60 25.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
10.6
51.2
20.99
Total
Sulfur
3.98
9.46
5.38
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.14
7.89
2.8?
Pyritic
Sulfur
60.1
Total
Sulfur
27.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 73.4
Sink at 1.60 26.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
9-73
51.6
20.87
Total
Sulfur
3.66
9.56
5.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.79
8.20
2.76
Pyritic
Sulfur
72.4
Total
Sulfur
33-0
-------
TABLE A-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal ivipnt/ifiction NO. 6, 7, and 8 SEAM. ATHENS COUNTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-113.
1729
Weight <$,, Dry Basis
Moisture
4.56
Ash
10.9
Volatile
Matter
42.8
Fixed
Carbon
k6.3
Total
Sulfur
If .60
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.0k
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.82
Organic
Sulfur
1.7k
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,638
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 86.0
Sink at 1.60 14.0
Composite 100 . 0
Ash
4.69
47.2
10.64
Total
Sulfur
2.86
15.4
4.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.90
14.5
2.8l
Pyritic
Sulfur
68.1
Total
Sulfur
37.8
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85.3
Sink at I.6o 14.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.54
44.7
10.44
Total
Sulfur
2.44
16.6
4.52
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.54
15.4
2.72
Pyritic
Sulfur
80.9
Total
Sulfur
47.0
-------
A-llU.
TABLE A-U
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, PERKY COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/g Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
5.22
Ash
19.5
Volatile
Matter
38.8
Fixed
Carbon
Ul. 7
Total
Sulfur
U.72
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.70
Organic
Sulfur
1.00
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11.1U3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 72.1+
Sink at 1.60 27.6
Composite 100_0
Ash
7.2U
U9.6
18.93
Total
Sulfur
1.89
12 .k
k.79
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.70
11.0
3.5U
Pyritic
Sulfur
81.1
Total
Sulfur
60.0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 7i.8
Sink at 1.60 28.2
Composite 100 0
Ash
7.07
52.8
19.97
Total
Sulfur
1.7lf
13.1
k.Vk
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.55
12.7
3.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
8:1.5
Total
Sulfur
63.1
-------
A-115,
TABLE A-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdgnt-ifi pat-inn NO. 8 SEAM, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine final Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch -x O
BCR Lot No. 1733
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.18
Ash
26,6
Volatile
Matter
35. U
Fixed
Carbon
38.0
Total
Sulfur
U.58
Sulfate
Sulfur
o.oU
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.8U
Organic
Sulfur
1.70
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10,575
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 67.3
Sink at 1.6o 32.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.12
69.0
27.35
Total
Sulfur
3.37
7.6k
4.77
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.14
7.00
3.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
59.1
Total
Sulfur
26.4
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 65.1
Sink at 1.60 34.9
Composite 100_0
Ash
7.38
61.9
26. In
Total
Sulfur
2.90
7.56
4.53
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.73
6.75
2.83
Pyritic
Sulfur
74.3
Total
Sulfur
36.7
-------
A-116.
TABLE A-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
173*1
Weight <$>, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.3k
Ash
9.W
Volatile
Matter
37-9
Fixed
Carbon
52.7
Total
Sulfur
2.18
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.U2
Organic
Sulfur
0.75
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,395
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
'Float at 1.60 88.8
Sink at 1.60 11.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
k.67
kQ.8
8.9k
Total
Sulfur
l.lit
9.36
2.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
8.80
1.28
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.8
Total
Sulfur
k7.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 87.5
Sink at 1.60 12.5
Composite 100.0
Ash
^.75
in. 8
9-38
Total
Sulfur
0.96
9.90
2.17
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.18
9.50
1.35
Pyritic
Sulfur
87.3
Total
Sulfur
56.0
-------
TABLE A-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TdPnti fi pa.t.i on NO. 6-A SEAM, HARBISON COUMTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
A-117.
1735
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.92
Ash
10.1*
Volatile
Matter
38.it
Fixed
Carbon
51.2
Total
Sulfur
2.50
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.86
Organic
Sulfur
0.63
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,23^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $.
'Float at 1.6o 86.6
Sink at 1.6o I3.lt
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.1*2
53.4
10.98
Total
Sulfur
0.90
11.5
2.32
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.32
11.2
1.78
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.8
Total
Sulfur
6U.O
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85.9
Sink at I.6o 1^.1
Composite 100.0
Ash
1*.37
1*9.9
10.79
Total
Sulfur
0.78
12.8
2.1*7
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
12.3
1.86
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.9
Total
Sulfur
69.8
-------
A-118.
TABLE A-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 5-A SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1743
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.79
Ash
17.2
Volatile
Matter
37.6
Fixed
Carbon
45.2
Total
Sulfur
3.90
Sulfate
Sulfur
O.l6
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.08
Organic
•Sulfur
0.66
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,232
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
'Float at 1.60 78. 4
Sink at 1.6o 21.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.77
59.5
18.16
Total
Sulfur
1.71*
11.8
3-91
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.88
11.1
3.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
71.4
Total
Sulfur
•5-5.4
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.4
Sink at 1.60 22.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.1*2
54.4
17.26
Total
Sulfur
1.46
12.8
4.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.59
12.5
3.28
Pyritic
Sulfur
80.8
Total
Sulfur
62.6
-------
TABIE A-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdgntiflpatirm NO. k SEAM. MAHONDTG COUNTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
A-119.
Weight $, Dry Basis
Moisture
3.22
Ash
7.58
Volatile
Matter
38.6
Fixed
Carbon
53-82
Total
Sulfur
2.5U
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.0k
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.80
Organic
Sulfur
0.70
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,61^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 89.3
Sink at 1.60 10.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
3. to
IK>A
7.36
Total
Sulfur
0.90
lk.6
2.37
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
13-7
1.76
Pyritic
Sulfur
81.7
Total
Sulfur
6k.6
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 88.2
Sink at I.6o u.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
3.22
40.6
7.63
Total
Sulfur
0.82
1^.6
2.1*5
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.23
13.8
1.83
Pyritic
Sulfur
87.2
Total
Sulfur
67.7
-------
A-120
TABLE A-10
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpntl.fixation NO. 6 SEAM, COUJMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1745
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.34
Ash
10.it
Volatile
Matter
37.5
Fixed
Carbon
52.10
Total
Sulfur
2.44
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.79
Organic
Sulfur
0.60
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,333
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 85.7
Sink at 1.60 14.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.73
44.6
10.^3
Total
Sulfur
0.76
12.1
2.38
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.32
11.9
1.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.1
Total
Sulfur
68.9
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 83.8
Sink at 1.60 l6.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.02
45.1
10.67
Total
Sulfur
0.59
12.8
2.57
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.14
12.2
2.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
92.2
Total
Sulfur
75.8
-------
A-121.
TABLE A-ll
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpnt.i f i f at-i nn LOWER KETTANNIHG SEAM, CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight $, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.58
Ash
2^.8
Volatile
Matter
19-7
Fixed
Carbon
55.50
Total
Sulfur
l.llf
Sulfate
Sulfur
<0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.90
Organic
Sulfur
0,2k
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11, 59^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 67.7
Sink at 1.60 32.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.6
60.9
2^.82
Total
Sulfur
0.6l
2.52
1.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.21
2. US'
0.93
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.7
Total
Sulfur
1+6.5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 66.7
Sink at 1.60 33.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.7
61.8
25.05
Total
Sulfur
0.55
2.58
1.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.11
2.47
0.92
Pyritic
Sulfur
87.8
Total
Sulfur
51.8
-------
A-122.
TABUS A-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
LOWER KETTANNING AMD LOWER FREEPORT SEAM,
Coal TdPnti f-i f a.t/i on CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
17^7
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.5^
Ash
13.3
Volatile
Matter
22.3
Fixed
Carbon
6k. ko
Total
Sulfur
2.142
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.81*
Organic
Sulfur
0.56
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
Float at 1.60 81.6
Sink at 1.60 i8.lt
Composite 100.0
Ash
U.88
58.8
1U.80
Total
Sulfur
0.92
9.53
2.50
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
9.16
1.9U
Pyritic
Sulfur
83.2
Total
Sulfur
62.0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 79-6
Sink at 1.60 20.lt
Composite 100.0
Ash
^. 35
57.6
15.21
Total
Sulfur
0.75
9-78
2.59
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.17
9-53
2.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.8
Total
Sulfur
69.0
-------
TABLE A-13
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification LOWER KITTAMNIMG SEAM, INDIANA COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
17*48
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-123.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
O.U6
Ash
n.8
Volatile
Matter
24.2
Fixed
Carbon
62.00
Total
Sulfur
U.QO
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
U.lU
Organic
Sulfur
0.71
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
•n,^56
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 82.1
Sink at 1.60 17.9
Composite 100>0
Ash
l.kk
50.5
13.51
Total
Sulfur
1.79
17.7
»f.6»t
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.02
17.3
3.Q3
Pyritic
Sulfur
75,U
Total
Sulfur
6?. 5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8l.l
Sink at 1.60 18.9
Composite 100>0
Ash
U.62
?1.U
13.146
Total
Sulfur
1.147
18.8
U.75
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.6Q
18.5
*4.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
83.^
Total
Sulfur
70.0
-------
TABLE A-lU
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal iVtentifinatl on LOWER KTTTAMNING SEAM, CAMBRIA COUNTY, PEMMSYLVAHIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot-No.
17*19
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.66
Ash
12.6
Volatile
Matter
20.3
Fixed
Carbon
67.10
Total
Sulfur
1.50
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.94
Organic
Sulfur
0.54
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,606
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 83.6
Sink at 1.60 16.4
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.10
1*8.8
12.27
Total
Sulfur
0.70
5.07
1.42
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
4.93
0.93
Pyritic
Sulfur
84.0
Total
Sulfur
53.3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 81.8
Sink at 1.60 18. 2
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.46
46.4
12.09
Total
Sulfur
0.66
4.52
1.36
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.08
4.50
.88
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.5
Total
Sulfur
56.0
-------
TABLE A-15
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1750
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-125.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.75
Ash
22.5
Volatile
Matter
29.8
Fixed
Carbon
1*6.70
Total
Sulfur
3-7U
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.22
Organic
Sulfur
0.^9
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,70U
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 70.2
Sink at 1.60 29.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.06
6U.6
22.80
Total
Sulfur
1.07
10. k
3.85
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.57
10.31
3.U7
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.3
Total
Sulfur
71. U
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o Yo.8
Sink at 1.60 29.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.MJ
62.0
21.99
Total
Sulfur
0.87
10.5
3.68
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.36
10.2
3.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
88.8
Total
Sulfur
76.7
-------
A-126.
TABLE A-16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdentif-Lcat-ion UPPER FREEPORT SEAM. INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Bav Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1751
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.53
Ash
14.4
Volatile
Matter
22.2
Fixed
Carbon
63.40
Total
Sulfur
1.83
Sulfate
Sulfur
<0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.31
Organic
Sulfur
0.52
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,322
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.8
Sink at 1.60 19.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.36
54.2
14.74
Total
Sulfur
0.78
5.80
1.74
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.28
5.73
1.33
Pyritic
Sulfur
78.6
Total
Sulfur
57.4
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 79.9
Sink at 1.60 20.1
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.97
53.4
14.70
Total
Sulfur
0.68
5.90
1.73
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.20
5.95
1.36
Pyritic
Sulfur
84.7
Total
Sulfur
62.8
-------
A-127.
TABLE A-17
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TdetrM f i cat.i on UPPER KITTANNING SEAM, SOMERSET COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1752
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.6k
Ash
15.^
Volatile
Matter
17.6
Fixed
Carbon
67.00
Total
Sulfur
2.71
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.31
Organic
Sulfur
0.38
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
1?,030
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.9
Sink at 1.60 19.1
Composite -^QO 0
Ash
6.33
55.6
15. yU
Total
Sulfur
0.5^
12.1
2.75
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.16
12.2
2.U6
Pyritic
Sulfur
93.1
Total
Sulfur
80.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 79.5
Sink at 1.60 20.5
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.9^
5^.0
15.59
Total
Sulfur
0.50
11.2
2.69
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.Ik
11. ^
2.1+3
Pyritic
Sulfur
Q^.Q
Total
Sulfur
81. 5
-------
A-128
TABLE A-18
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Trtpn-M fi ^.t.-i nn LOWER KITTAMING SEAM. IHDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1755
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.6l
Ash
20.1
Volatile
Matter
22.2
Fixed
Carbon
57-70
Total
Sulfur
IK 66
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
IK 00
Organic
Sulfur
0.6l
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,273
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 70.6
Sink at 1.60 2^.k
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.26
62.00
21.9U
Total
Sulfur
1.32
Ul.lt
5.17
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.55
llK5
IK 75
Pyritic
Sulfur
86.2
Total
Sulfur
71.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 72.1
Sink at 1.6o 27.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
IK 68
59-2
19.89
Total
Sulfur
1.18
13.5
IK 62
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.38
13.2
3.96
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.5
Total
Sulfur
7k.7
-------
TABUS A-19
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal -Mpnt.-i fi rat.i on LOWER KCTTANNING SEAM, CTDIAHA COUMTY. PEMSYJ.VANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
A-129.
BCR Lot No.
1756
Chemical Analysis, As-Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.54
Ash
ik.Q
Volatile
Matter
22.1
Fixed
Carbon
63.10
Total
Sulfur
5.20
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.04
Pyritic
Sulfur
4.56
Organic
Sulfur
0.60
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,110
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 76.2
Sink at 1.6o 23.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.08
55.1
16.98
Total
Sulfur
1.52
19-5
5.80
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.79
19.31
5.20
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.7
Total
Sulfur
70.8
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 78.6
Sink at 1.60 21. 4
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.54
52.0
14.70
Total
Sulfur
1.26
19.1
5.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.52
18.4
4.35
Pyritic
Sulfur
88.6
Total
Sulfur
75.8
-------
A-130.
TABLE A-20
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdenti f i pat.i nn FREEPORT SEAM, GRAWT COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1757
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.70
Ash
32.lt
Volatile
Matter
16.0
Fixed
Carbon
51.60
Total
Sulfur
2.52
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.16
Organic
Sulfur
0.34
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10.143
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 55.9
Sink at 1.6o W.I
Composite 100.0
Ash
10.4
67.1
35-40
Total
Sulfur
1.08
4.60
2.63
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.52
4.57
2.31
Pyritic
Sulfur
75.9
Total
Sulfur
57.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 57.9
Sink at 1.60 42.1
Composite 100.0
Ash
9-83
65.6
33-31
Total
Sulfur
0.91
4.60
2.46
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
4.55
2.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
85.6
Total
Sulfur
63.9
-------
TABLE A-21
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpnt.if1na.t-t on NO. 8 SEAM, HASKESON CQUTOTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
A-131.
1762
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.6k
Ash
13.0
Volatile
Matter
1*0.2
Fixed
Carbon
1*6.80
Total
Sulfur
3.61*
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.32
Organic
Sulfur
1.29
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,580
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 83.2
Sink at 1.6o 16.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.78
53.0
13.71
Total
Sulfur
2.13
12.8
3.92
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.78
11.5
2.58
Pyritic
Sulfur
66.1*
Total
Sulfur
1*1.5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 81.8
Sink at 1.6o 18.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.22
**3.7
12.22
Total
Sulfur
1.81*
10.7
3.1*5
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.53
9-90
2.21*
Pyritic
Sulfur
77.2
Total
Sulfur
1*9.5
-------
A-132.
TABLE A-22
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpn-Hfixation FREEPORT SEAM. PRESTON COUNTY. WEST VIRGINIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1763
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.52
Ash
lfc.3
Volatile
Matter
26.7
Fixed
Carbon
59.00
Total
Sulfur
1.52
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.98
Organic
Sulfur
0.52
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,03k
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 81.5
Sink at 1.6o 18.5
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.08
5^.6
15.06
Total
Sulfur
0.62
5.1*6
1.52
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.16
5.1)S
1.13
Pyritic
Sulfur
83.7
Total
Sulfur
50,. 2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 82.1
Sink at 1.60 17.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.52
53.0
lit. 02
Total
Sulfur
0.58
5.05
1.38
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.Ik
5.00
1.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
85.7
Total
Sulfur
61.8
-------
TABLE A-23
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
A-133.
Coal Tdpntifination BAKERSTOWN SEAM, GRAMT COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crashed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
176U
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.0k
Ash
29.1*
Volatile
Matter
19.6
Fixed
Carbon
51.00
Total
Sulfur
S.OJf
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.85
Organic
Sulfur
0.18
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10.696
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 60.3
Sink at 1.60 39.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
10.6
60.3
30.33
Total
Sulfur
0.72
7.03
3.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.28
6.90
2.91
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.2
Total
Sulfur
76.3
AnaJyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 6l.9
Sink at 1.6o 38.1
Composite 100.0
Ash
9.82
59.3
28.67
Total
Sulfur
0.68
6.24
2.80
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.21
5.70
2.30
Pyritic
Sulfur
92.6
Total
Sulfur
77.6
-------
TABLE A-2k
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification WO. 8 SKAM, .TFWKRHON cnTTNTY., DHTO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1765
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.7b
Ash
13.0
Volatile
Matter
37.6
Fixed
Carbon
1*9.1+0
Total
Sulfur
3.36
Sulfate
Sulfur
o.oU
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.26 .
Organic
Sulfur
1.06
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12.6^8
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, <%> Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8^.8
Sink at 1.60 16. 2
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.0^
56. k
14.19
Total
Sulfur
2.2k
0.88
^.1(8
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.10
9.^0
s.ks
Pyritic
Sulfur
51.^
Total
Sulfur
?^.?
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.8
Sink at 1.60 19.2
Composite 100 0
Ash
5.78
^7.5
H.79
Total
Sulfur
1.81
10.36
^5
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.68
9.^0
2.^5
Pyritic
Sulfur
69.9
Total
Sulfur
U6.1
-------
A-135.
TABLE A-25
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 9 SEAM, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1766
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.68
Ash
13-8
Volatile
Matter
39.1
Fixed
Carbon
47.10
Total
Sulfur
3-02
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
1 flft
-L . UU
Organic
Sulfur
1.12
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,520
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
Float at 1.60 89.4
Sink at 1.60 10.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
10.3
44.5
13-93
Total
Sulfur
1.93
13.2
3.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.77
11.9
1.95
Pyritic
Sulfur
59-0
Total
Sulfur
36.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, $ Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86.5
Sink at 1.60 13.5
Composite 100 . 0
Ash
9.40
40.7
13.63
Total
Sulfur
1.64
11.67
2.99
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.48
10.1
1.78
Pyritic
Sulfur
74.5
Total
Sulfur
45-7
-------
A-136.
TABLE A-26
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO
T!a.-w Tiun-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Tnch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1767
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
5.69
Ash
8.88
Volatile
Matter
la. 8
Fixed
Carbon
U9.32
Total
Sulfur
3.70
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.09
Organic
Sulfur
1.53
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,726
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 87.7
Sink at 1.60 12.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
3.64
51.1
9.U8
Total
Sulfur
2.1*2
Ik. 2
3.87
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.62
12.7
2.11
Pyritic
Sulfur
70.3
Total
Sulfur
31*. 5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85. Q
Sink at 1.6o ik.I
Composite -^QQ Q
Ash
3.81
38.6
8.72
Total
Sulfur
2.3U
11.78
3.67
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.60
9.16
1.81
Pyritic
Sulfur
71 .3
Total
Sulfur
^6.8
-------
A-137.
TABLE A-27
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed tn 1-1/P Tnnh Y n
BCR Lot No. 1768
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.U8
Ash
19. U
Volatile
Matter
^5.2
Fixed
Carbon
h^.kd
Total
Sulfur
U.71
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.07
Pyritic
Sulfur
^i.69
Organic
Sulfur
0.95
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,665
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 yli.o
Sink at 1.6o 26.0
Composite ^CO g
Ash
8.62
•57.it
21.^0
Total
Sulfur
2.79
11.1
lj.95
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.60
10.6
^.9U
Pyritic
Sulfur
56.6
Total
Sulfur
Uo.8
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 7^5.8
Sink at 1.6o 26.2
Composite 100>0
Ash
7.5U
5U.^!
19.79
Total
Sulfur
2.09
12.18
4.7^
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.95
11.0
?.58
Pyritic
Sulfur
7^.^
Total
Sulfur
5S.6
-------
A-138.
TABLE A-28
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification THTCK VREKPfffiT SKAM, ALT.mKRNY coim'iY, PA,
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1770
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.52
Ash
22.0
Volatile
Matter
%. k
Fixed
Carbon
lt-5. 60
Total
Sulfur
2.08
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.68
Organic
Sulfur
0.^5
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11. 6^5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 71.7
Sink at 1.60 28^
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.0?
6?.0
22.87
Total
Sulfur
0.70
5.02
2.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.?0
5.8?
1.86
Pyritic
Sulfur
83. ;L
Total
Sulfur
66.?
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 70.8
Sink at 1.60 29. 2
Composite -^QQ Q
Ash
7.78
6l. Q
2?. 58
Total
Sulfur
0.6U
6.2U
2.28
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.20
6.TR
l.Q1^
Pyritic
Sulfur
88.1
Total
Sulfur
6Q.?
-------
TABLE A-29
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TdgntJ flp.at.ion LOWER FREEPORT SEAM, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/g Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1771
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-139.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.88
Ash
12.8
Volatile
Matter
32.8
Fixed
Carbon
ik.ho
Total
Sulfur
2.5it
Sulfate
Sulfur
„
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.89
Organic
Sulfur
0.65
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13.3lK>
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8U.5
Sink at 1.6o 15; 5
Composite -^00 0
Ash
6.U6
U6.8
12.71
Total
Sulfur
0.9U
10.7
2.U5
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.36
10.3
l.QO
Pyritic
Sulfur
81.0
Total
Sulfur
fi^.o
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, $ Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 81*. 1
Sink at 1.60 15.9
Composite 100_0
Ash
5.85
U6.o
12.23
Total
Sulfur
0.76
10. 7U
2.35
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.18
1O.6
1.8U
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.5
Total
Sulfur
70.1
-------
A-lUO.
TABLE A-30
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Minp final finished to 1-1/2 Tnch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1778
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
l.lU
Ash
22.6
Volatile
Matter
30.1
Fixed
Carbon
U7.30
Total
Sulfur
2.1t3
Sulfate
Sulfur
_ —
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.9V
Organic
Sulfur
0.50
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,675
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 73.2
Sink at 1.60 26;8
Composite ino.O
Ash
7.^2
62.8
22.]Q
Total
Sulfur
0.7Q
7.05
P. 1*7
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.2?
7.05
2.O6
Pyritic
Sulfur
R8.1
Total
Sulfur
67.5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 714..!
Sink at 1.6o 25. Q
Composite 100-0
Ash
6.7U
6l.t
20.90
Total
Sulfur
0.72
6.56
2.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.l6
6.57
1.82
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.7
Total
Sulfur
70.lt
-------
TABLE A-31
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
A-lkl.
Coal Identification DOTTRT.K
RV.KM, AKMHTRnrcr, nmTOTV, PA.
Bfl.w Piin-nf-Minp final Pmghpd t.n 1-1/P TnfTi v n
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
O.QQ
Ash
27.2
Volatile
Matter
28.0
Fixed
Carbon
U4.80
Total
Sulfur
1.69
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.11
Organic
Sulfur
O.k6
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10.79^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 6k. k
Sink at 1.60 ^-f,
Composite 100 o
Ash
7.6k
66.0
P8. UP
Total
Sulfur
O.QO
2.08
1.6k
Pyritic
Sulfur
r>.2k
p.sn
i.oU
Pyritic
Sulfur
7fi.U
Total
Sulfur
k6.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 6^.5
Sink at 1.60 ^6.5
Composite 100. 0
Ash
7.18
61.7
27.08
Total
Sulfur
0.8l
3.0k
1.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.18
2.56
1.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
8^.8
Total
Sulfur
52.1
-------
A-1U2.
TABLE A-32
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpnt.i-f i oa.t.1 on NO. 5 SEAM, SULLIVAN COUNTY, INDIANA
Raw Run-of-Minp f!na.1 Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x Q
E. 8 Lot No. 177k
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
6.07
Ash
19.2
Volatile
Matter
^9.0
Fixed
Carbon
in. 80
Total
Sulfur
5.57
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
^.*
Organic
Sulfur
1.5U
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,651
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 7Q.5
Sink at 1.6o 20.5
Composite 100 O
Ash
7.7U
60.6
18.58
Total
Sulfur
2.80
15.8
5.^7
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.07
lU.8
^i.88
Pyritic
Sulfur
72.8
Total
Sulfur
kQ.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.^
Sink at 1.60 22.7
Composite 100 Q
Ash
7.19
5M
17.88
Total
Sulfur
2.1*2
llt.6
5.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.71
13.5
3.6l
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.0
Total
Sulfur
56.6
-------
TABLE A-33
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 5 SEAM, LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Tiun-nf-Minp dna.1 n-rushpd to 1-1 /2 Tnfh y
BCR Lot No. 1775
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
4.82
Ash
14.2
Volatile
Matter
4^.4
Fixed
Carbon
42.40
Total
Sulfur
4.63
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.16
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.93
Organic
Sulfur
0.54
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12.125
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 82.4
Sink at 1.60 17,6
Composite 10{XO
Ash
5.94
52.9
14.20
Total
Sulfur
1.6l
21.2
5.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.92
20.5
U.37
Pyritic
Sulfur
76,6
Total
Sulfur
6s. 2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 YQ f,
Sink at 1.6o 20. h
Composite 1QO_0
Ash
S.Sli
so.o
ifc.fii
Total
Sulfur
1.^8
.17.6
4.69
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.70
16.9
4.00
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.2
Total
Sulfur
70.2
-------
A-lM*.
TABLE A-31*
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 2 SEAM, PEORIA COUNTY, TT.T.TOOTR
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1788
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
ft m
Ash
1? k
Volatile
Matter
kh n
Fixed
Carbon
1*3 fio
Total
Sulfur
5 Q1
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.10
Pyritic
Sulfur
h 16
Organic
Sulfur
1.7^
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,51*2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 Rl*. 1*
Sink at 1.60 15,6
Composite 100 0
Ash
U.5U
59.0
13.04
Total
Sulfur
2.88
25.0
6.33
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.01
2k.O
IK 60
Pyritic
Sulfur
75.b
Total
Sulfur
51.1*
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 81. k
Sink at 1.60 18.6
Composite loo_0
Ash
U.18
UU.Q
11.75
Total
Sulfur
2.5Q
16.0
5,08
Pyritic
Sulfur
0,71
lk.7
3.31
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.7
Total
Sulfur
56.3
-------
TABLE A-35
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 5 SEAM, KNOX COUNTY, TT.T.TTOnTR ,
•Raw Bun-df-Mine Cna.1 finished to 1-1/3 Inch X Q
BCR Lot No. 1789
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
ll.U
Ash
19,2
Volatile
Matter
^8.2
Fixed
Carbon
te.60
Total
Sulfur
7.28
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.22
Pyritic
Sulfur
5.60
Organic
Sulfur
l.W
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11.152
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
Float at 1.6o YY-5
Sink at 1.6o 22^5
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.50
60.6
18.67
Total
Sulfur
^i.28
2^.2
7.76
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.1*7
22.1
6.11
Pyritic
Sulfur
7^.7
Total
Sulfur
5U.Q
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 71. Q
Sink at 1.60 28.1
Composite 10Q_0
Ash
6.1*5
51.8
1Q.19
Total
Sulfur
2.96
18.0
7.19
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.08
16.6
5.UU
Pyritic
Sulfur
80.7
Total
Sulfur
59.^
-------
A-1U6.
TABLE A-36
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification wnT s HKAM,
TT.T.TW)TS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 179Q
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
10.8
Ash
20.0
Volatile
Matter
38.2
Fixed
Carbon
Ul.80
Total
Sulfur
3.98
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.07
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.30
Organic
Sulfur
l.6l
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,129
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
Float at 1.60 T7-&
Sink at 1.60 22;U
Composite 100 0
Ash
8.7U
60.2
20.27
Total
Sulfur
2.79
7.32
^.80
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.80
6.^0
2.0^
Pyritic
Sulfur
65.2
Total
Sulfur
29.9
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 76.1
Sink at 1.60 23.9
Composite 100 0
Ash
8.66
S6.U
20.07
Total
Sulfur
2.148
7.17
3.60
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.5k
6.11
1.87
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.5
Total
Sulfur
37.7
-------
TABLE A-37
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, MONTGOMERY COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 17Q.1
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
A-lU?.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
10.8
Ash
17.1
Volatile
Matter
37.8
Fixed
Carbon
1*5. ID-
Iota!
Sulfur
5.00
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.07
Pyritic
Sulfur
•3.03
Organic
Sulfur
1.90
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,528
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
Float at 1.60 79.2
Sink at 1.60 20;8
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.01
55. 9
^LZ^lS.
Total
Sulfur
3.05
13.5
5.22
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.85
12.2
?.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
71.0,
Total
Sulfur
3Q.O
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 78.1
Sink at 1.60 21. P,
Composite 100>0
Ash
6.65
50.6
16.28
Total
Sulfur
2.75
11.2
U.60
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.5U
9.80
2.57
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.2
Total
Sulfur
U5.0
-------
A-1U8.
TABLE A-38
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1792
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
7.06
Ash
19.6
Volatile
Matter
33.6
Fixed
Carbon
146.8
Total
Sulfur
1.35
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.8H
Organic
Sulfur
0.1*8
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,233
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.8
Sink at 1.6o 19.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.1*8
72.1
19.08
Total
Sulfur
1.07
2.80
1.1*0
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.1*1
2.73
0.86
Pyritic
Sulfur
51.2
Total
Sulfur
20.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 79.1
Sink at 1.60 20.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.72
61.6
18.19
Total
Sulfur
0.96
2.51
1.28
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
2.15
0.71
Pyritic
Sulfur
60.7
Total
Sulfur
28.9
-------
TABLE A-39
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TVlprvt-.-if-i^-Hrm NO. 5 SEAM, PERRY COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
1793
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
6.1*4
Ash
15.6
Volatile
Matter
38.3
Fixed
Carbon
1*6.10
Total
Sulfur
1*.52
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.07
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.57
Organic
Sulfur
1.88
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,086
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 83.2
Sink at 1.60 16.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.68
56.2
15.83
Total
Sulfur
2. 8U
11.9
4.36
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.83
10.7
2.1*9
Pyritic
Sulfur
67-7
Total
Sulfur
37.2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.6
Sink at 1.6o 19.1*
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.11
1*9.2
15.28
Total
Sulfur
2.62
10.8
1*.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.57
9.33
2.27
Pyritic
Sulfur
77.8
Total
Sulfur
1*2.0
-------
A-150.
TABLE A-40
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
1794
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.12
Ash
19.6
Volatile
Matter
31.6
Fixed
Carbon
48.80
Total
Sulfur
2.34
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.68
Organic
Sulfur
0.60
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
ll,lt9U
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
'Float at 1.60 79-1
Sink at 1.6o 20.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
7-00
68.3
19.81
Total
Sulfur
1.142
5.60
2.29
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.63
5.18
1.58
Pyritic
Sulfur
62.5
Total
Sulfur
39-3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 76.6
Sink at 1.60 23.4
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.00
59-6
19-31
Total
Sulfur
1.18
5.59
2.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.44
5-15
1.54
Pyritic
Sulfur
73-8
Total
Sulfur
49.6
-------
TABLE A-Ul
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TrlPn-Hf-.Va.t.-inn NO. 5 SEAM, TTUMKLIN COUWTV, TT.T.TTOOTS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/g Tnoh x O
BCR Lot No. 1795
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-151.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.30
Ash
13.2
Volatile
Matter
35.5
Fixed
Carbon
51.30
Total
Sulfur
3.02
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.92
Organic
Sulfur
i.oU
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,10Q
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85.7
Sink at 1.60 lU.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.18
52.2
12.76
Total
Sulfur
1.82
13.6
3.50
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.UQ
12.7
2.2k
Pyritic
Sulfur
7^.5
Total
Sulfur
3Q.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8U.1
Sink at 1.60 15.9
Composite 100 0
Ash
5.92
U7.6
12.55
Total
Sulfur
1.68
ll.U
3.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.37
10. k
1.96
Pyritic
Sulfur
80.7
Total
Sulfur
UU.lt
-------
A-152.
TABLE A-42
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Triprvh-i fiction NO. 6 SEAM. WILLIAMSON COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crashed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1796
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.92
Ash
19.6
Volatile
Matter
34.5
Fixed
Carbon
45.90
Total
Sulfur
4.38
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.82
Organic
Sulfur
1.35
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,11*6
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
'Float at 1.60 77.2
Sink at 1.60 22.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.66
62.5
20.16
Total
Sulfur
2.31
12.8
4.70
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.62
11.6
3.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
78.0
Total
Sulfur
47-3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 75.6
Sink at 1.60 24.4
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.23
56.6
19.28
Total
Sulfur
2.10
11.2
4.32
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.45
9-94
2.76
Pyritic
Sulfur
84.0
Total
Sulfur
52.1
-------
TABLE A-43
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal 1VlPTvMfTf.a.t.ir,n NO. 6 SEAM, FRANKLIN COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
A-153.
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
1797
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.13
Ash
16.0
Volatile
Matter
33.2
Fixed
Carbon
50.80
Total
Sulfur
1.1U
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.69
Organic
Sulfur
o.»*
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,032
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, i.
'Float at 1.60 84.2
Sink at 1.60 15.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.28
66.2
15.75
Total
Sulfur
0.88
3.10
1.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
2.83
0.73
Pyritic
Sulfur
52.2
Total
Sulfur
22.8
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.2
Sink at 1.60 22.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.27
53.3
16.99
Total
Sulfur
0.82
2.39
1.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.25
2.0k
0.66
Pyritic
Sulfur
63.8
Total
Sulfur
28.1
-------
TABLE A-kk
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification MO. 2 SEAM, FULTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1798
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.98
Ash
21.7
Volatile
Matter
36.2
Fixed
Carbon
1*2.10
Total
Sulfur
5.35
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.53
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.90
Organic
Sulfur
0.92
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10,880
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.6o 7^.7
Sink at 1.6o 26.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.76
61.6
20.1*5
Total
Sulfur
2.69
12.0
5.11*
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.19
10.8
3.72
Pyritic
Sulfur
69.5
Total
Sulfur
1+9.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 71.5
Sink at 1.60 28.5
Composite 100_Q
Ash
S.U6
58.U
20,55
Total
Sulfur
2.31*
12.2
5,15
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.02
11.2
3.92
Pyritic
Sulfur
73.8
Total
Sulfur
56.3
-------
TABLE A-l*5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 5 SEAM, SALINE COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
A-155-
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1817
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.72
Ash
16.2
Volatile
Matter
33-5
Fixed
Carbon
50.30
Total
Sulfur
2.68
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.11
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.80
Organic
Sulfur
0.77
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,131
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8k. 8
Sink at 1.60 15.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.20
63.8
15.80
Total
Sulfur
1.79
7.26
2.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.81*
6.51
1.70
Pyritic
Sulfur
53-3
Total
Sulfur
33.2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 79.4
Sink at 1.60 20.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.Uo
1*9. ^
15.26
Total
Sulfur
1.U5
6.31*
2.1*6
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.69
5.69
1.72
Pyritic
Sulfur
61.7
Total
Sulfur
^5.9
-------
A-156.
TABLE A-46
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TrtPtvHf-ir.a.-Hnn NO. 6 SEAM. SALINE COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1818
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.62
Ash
20.5
Volatile
Matter
33.6
Fixed
Carbon
45.90
Total
Sulfur
5.05
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
3-54
Organic
Sulfur
1.33
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,312
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
'Float at 1.60 75.2
Sink at 1.6o 24.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.20
60.5
20.42
Total
Sulfur
2.37
13-2
5.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.82
12.0
3.59
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.8
Total
Sulfur
53.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 72.3
Sink at 1.60 27.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.34
57.0
20.37
Total
Sulfur
2.02
12.6
4.95
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.53
11.5
3-57
Pyritic
Sulfur
85.0
Total
Sulfur
60.0
-------
TABLE A-V7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
A-157.
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, HOPKINS COUNTY, KENTUCKY
Rav; Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1819
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.8U
Ash
18.9
Volatile
Matter
^.6
Fixed
Carbon
U7.50
Total
Sulfur
2.U6
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.8U
Organic
Sulfur
0.53
Calorific
Value, Btu/lfc
11.5UU
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 75.3
Sink at 1.6o 2U.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
3-28
68.8
19.U6
Total
Sulfur
l.?8
6.26
2.59
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.56
5.81*
1.86
Pyritic
Sulfur
60.6
Total
Sulfur
U^.Q
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 71^2
Sink at 1.60 25.8
Composite 10(XO
Ash
3.78
59.0
18.0^?
Total
Sulfur
1-17
5.77
2.^6
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.Uli
5.35
1.71
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.1
Total
Sulfur
^P.li
-------
A-158.
TABLE A-U8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification WO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
Baw Bun-nf-Minp ("!n»1 (1ri]g>ipfl tn 1-1/2 Tnr-Vi v I")
BCR Lot No. 1820
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.50
Ash
10. 9
Volatile
Matter
^7.0
Fixed
Carbon
52.10
Total
Sulfur
2.1Q
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.76
Organic
Sulfur
0.^5
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
1^.168
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86. U
Sink at 1.60 1^.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
U. 50
56.5
11.57
Total
Sulfur
0.51
15.1
2.^9
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.11
ll*. 6
2.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
9^.7
Total
Sulfur
76.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8^.9
Sink at 1.60 16.1
Composite -J_QQ Q
Ash
U.lfl
1*5.6
10.85
Total
Sulfur
0.50
10.7
2.11*
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.11
10.3
1.75
Pyritic
Sulfur
9^.7
Total
Sulfur
77.2
-------
TABLE A-51
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
Baw Biin-nf-Minp f!oa.1 rVushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1823
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
3.1*8
Ash
11.8
Volatile
Matter
1*0.8
Fixed
Carbon
1*7.1*0
Total
Sulfur
1*.85
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.15
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.23
Organic
Sulfur
1.1*7
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12.61*3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o fa.Q
Sink at 1.6o il*.i
Composite 100.0
Ash
1*.81*
51.2
11.38
Total
Sulfur
2.U7
17.2
U. 55
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.76
15.9
2.89
Pyritic
Sulfur
76,S
Total
Sulfur
ItQ.l
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 82.0
Sink at 1.60 18. 0
Composite 100.0
Ash
k.6o
1*5.1*
11. 9k
Total
Sulfur
2.38
16.2
U.87
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.69
ll*.9
3.25
Pyritic
Sulfur
79.6
Total
Sulfur
50.9
-------
A-162.
TABLE A-52
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification LOWER KITTANNING SEAM, INDIANA COUNTY, PA.
Ra.w Bun-of-Minp Hna.1 Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch y Q
BCR Lot No. 182U
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.36
Ash
16.5
Volatile
Matter
27.8
Fixed
Carbon
S5.70
Total
Sulfur
h.OO
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.18
Organic
Sulfur
0.7k
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,8oU
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.3
Sink at 1.6o 22.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.61
5^.2
16.61*
Total
Sulfur
1.36
13.0
k.OO
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.50
12. k
3.20
Pyritic
Sulfur
8U.T
Total
Sulfur
66.0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 76.0
Sink at 1.6o 2^.0
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.16
^
16.26
Total
Sulfur
1.22
13.0
U.05
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
12. k
3.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.3
Total
Sulfur
69.5
-------
TABLE A-53
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification KTTTAiWTNft SKAM, AKMSTROMTr coimrv, PA,
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1825
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-163.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.50
Ash
111. 8
Volatile
Matter
3U.O
Fixed
Carbon
51.20
Total
Sulfur
lf.83
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
IK oo
Organic
Sulfur
0.75
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,872
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 81.7
Sink at 1.6o 18^
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.8U
5U.7
1U.78
Total
Sulfur
2.26
llt.8
U.55
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.1*2
14.2
3.75
Pyritic
Sulfur
6k. S
Total
Sulfur
53.2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 79.^?
Sink at 1.60 20.7
Composite 100>0
Ash
k.95
52.0
1^.69
Total
Sulfur
1.7l*
16.2
k. 7^
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.90
15.5
3.92
Pyritic
Sulfur
77.5
Total
Sulfur
61*.0
-------
TABLE A-54
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification LOWER FREEPORT SEAM. CLEARFIELD COUNTY. PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1826
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight $, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.39
Ash
10.4
Volatile
Matter
25.3
Fixed
Carbon
64.30
Total
Sulfur
2.68
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.11
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.01
Organic
Sulfur
0.56
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,876
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86.6
Sink at 1.60 13. k
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.06
45.0
10.41
Total
Sulfur
0.88
11.6
2.32
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
11.1
1.76
Pyritic
Sulfur
81*. 6
Total
Sulfur
67.2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8k. 6
Sink at 1.60 15.4
Composite 100.0
Ash
4.24
39.3
9.64
Total
Sulfur
0.70
11.0
2.29
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.10
10.5
1.70
Pyritic
Sulfur
95.0
Total
Sulfur
73.9
-------
TABLE A-55
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tden+.i fi r.a-tvi on LOWER FREEPORT SEAM. INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-165.
1827
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.38
Ash
18.9
Volatile
Matter
2U.6
Fixed
Carbon
56.50.
Total
Sulfur
2.16
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.77
Organic
Sulfur
0.36
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,3Q3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.6
Sink at 1.6o 22. k
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.96
61.8
19.2^
Total
Sulfur
0.78
6.95
2.16
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.21
6.65
1.65
Pyritic
Sulfur
88.1
Total
Sulfur
63.9
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.2
Sink at 1.60 22.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.05
58.2
17-9^
Total
Sulfur
0.66
6.65
2.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.lU
6.33
1.55
Pyritic
Sulfur
92.1
Total
Sulfur
69.lt
-------
A-166.
TABLE A-56
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpnt/lfixation UPPER FREEPORT SEAM. ARMSTRONG COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1828
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.76
Ash
16.1
Volatile
Matter
23.8
Fixed
Carbon
60.10
Total
Sulfur
2.93
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.06
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.20
Organic
Sulfur
0.6?
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,546
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
'Float at 1.60 8l.l
Sink at 1.6o 18.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.08
57.8
16.67
Total
Sulfur
1.2k
10.5
2.99
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.1*6
9.91
2.25
Pyritic
Sulfur
79.1
Total
Sulfur
57.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 77.3
Sink at 1.60 22.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.56
51.1+
16.74
Total
Sulfur
1.09
8.78
2.84
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
8.16
2.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
85.9
Total
Sulfur
62.8
-------
TABLE A-57
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal TdPTi-M f i oa.t.1'nn LOWER KITTATOING SEAM, ARMSTRONG COUNTY. PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCE Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-167.
1829
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.91
Ash
21.3
Volatile
Matter
33.5
Fixed
Carbon
It5.20
Total
Sulfur
3-70
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
3-10
Organic
Sulfur
0.52
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,780
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %.
'Float at 1.60 72.0
Sink at 1.6o 28.0
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.39
55.6
20.89
Total
Sulfur
1.33
10.2
3.81
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.6k
9.52
3-13
Pyritic
Sulfur
79- ^
Total
Sulfur
6k.l
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 69.6
Sink at 1.60 30. k
Composite ^QQ Q
Ash
6.95
52.3
20.7k
Total
Sulfur
1.15
8.83
3.U8
Pyritic
Sulfur
o.te
8.2U
2.80
Pyritic
Sulfur
86.5
Total
Sulfur
68.1
-------
A-168.
TABLE A-58
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM. ARMSTRONG COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
1830
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.81*
Ash
11.6
Volatile
Matter
31*. 0
Fixed
Carbon
51*. 1*0
Total
Sulfur
2.25
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.6k
Organic
Sulfur
0.49
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,426
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 86.4
Sink at 1.60 lk.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.72
54.3
12.8?
Total
Sulfur
0.80
12.0
2.M*
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.23
11.2
1.83
Pyritic
Sulfur
86.0
Total
Sulfur
61*. 1*
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 83.7
Sink at 1.60 l6.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
5-05
1*7.0
11.89
Total
Sulfur
0.80
9.75
2.26
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.16
8.97
1.60
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.2
Total
Sulfur
61*. 1*
-------
TABLE A-59
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER CLARION SEAM, CLARION COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1831
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-169.
Weight , Dry Basis
Moisture
1.1*
Ash
1^.2
Volatile
Matter
3^.0
Fixed
Carbon
50.80
Total
Sulfur
2.5U
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.07
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.92
Organic
Sulfur
0.55
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12.530
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 81.8
Sink at 1.60 18.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.80
57. 9
15.28
Total
Sulfur
1.05
8.75
2.V5
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.^1*
8.18
1.77
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.^
Total
Sulfur
58.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.1
Sink at 1.60 19.9
Composite 10Q-0
Ash
5.60
51.0
lU.6^
Total
Sulfur
1.05
7.92
2.1*2
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.3lt
7.T.2
1.73
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.^
Total
Sulfur
58.7
-------
o
o
CO
H-
d-
(B
_i
8
b
JD
30
jj
ON
Jl
l_i
Lq
1-1
CO
H-
S*
P
d-
H
ON
°
H
Jl
^
_j—
O
ON
__l
o
Jl
CO
•Jl
I^J
1 '
o
p
d-
P
d-
^_i
•
&
00
•°
p-
3
ro
.0
00
o
t"
^
•o
30
,
ro t-1
II
d-
CO
i
^>
CO
p1
CO H3
P O
PJ <+
p PJ
t-^
cPC?
p 4
Kh H-
P Ci-
H H'
0
t/3 hd
& 4
25
4 H*
O
c o
H ct
2" i-1
hi
O
p1
p-
0
p
jj>
p
pj
^
CO
H-
CO
o
vj
*t>
y
P
^-j
<^
CO
ro
CO
o
1-6
CO
ro
0
ro
H*
ro
p-
CO
H
ro
I
P
n
ro
p-
d-
0
|^
B'
P
CO
ro
o
o
s
w
P-
tri
03
*"
CO
H-
CO
s:
ro
Jf
g
U
Redact:
o
a
0
o
CO
H-
d-
ro
b
D
o
bo
ji
bo
CO
i
H
JO
ON
Jl
O
fr
b
D
_J
H
P
d-
H
CO
'f
jJ
Jl
•o
o
8
•jj
CO
Float an
Weight ,
CO
&
>
*
Total
Sulfur
CO g)
H) !-••
P d-
o
I-1 H
H, H-
P ct
0
CO H
P
p
ro
H'
I
g1
o
ct
H-
O
xJ
_J
•o
i)
ro
ro
^_
-J
OO
8
o
£
H
s
^Q
ON
_j
O
_n
^.
H-
CO
d-
P
CO
B1
<
s o
ct&
(B H-
ro
o ^d
P H-
hi X
o* ro
O PJ
W (-3
F °
P ct
CO CO
p p
p p
p p
hi ct
(B
H hi
MI H-
P ct
hi H-
O
Cp O
POP
P? §
hi H-
0
So
P P
ro H
- o
hi
td H-
Ct Mj
P H-
ro
I-1-
t
|
W
P
CO
H-
CO
o o
P1 0
8 &
O H
P P<
P ro
|3
& ft
P P!
% g
I™1* cl~
CO H-
" §
>
CO
ro3
o
ro
H-
<
ro
PI
W
s
I-H
Ct
!3
O
3)
B
s;
3J
3
-*l
1
s
3
ro
c?
]]
o
g
»
p1
ro
a,
ct
o
— l
i
ro"
H
3
•}
&
X
O
§
p-
1
>
3
>
s
^
>
*!
•a
-3
3
"3
<•
D
H
B
00
•o
t?3
3
% ?L
O d-
hi H-
O
ro
3 O
§ M>
H- O
Ot) S
M
hi H
H- ro
H-S
0 P-
COOt)
P 'D
h+j 1-^
g o
hi 0
ro
H) CO
hi co
9 ""
p CO
hr] g
P" p,
ro
c?S
Pg"
£
p
ro
CO
-------
TABLE A-63
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
A-171.
Coal Identification NO. 5 SEAM. MaSKIMGUM COUNTY, OHIO
Bun-of-Mine Coal, Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1835
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.6U
Ash
12.0
Volatile
Matter
39.9
Fixed
Carbon
1*8.10
Total
Sulfur
5.36
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.36
Pyritic
Sulfur
U.62
Organic
Sulfur
0.38
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12, 33^
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 85.3
Sink at 1.60 iU.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
U.56
51.2
_llJl2_
Total
Sulfur
1.2l*
2^.2
U.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
OM
22.k
^.fr7
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.5
Total
Sulfur
76.9
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8l.9
Sink at 1.60 18. l
Composite 100_o
Ash
U.31
1*2.9
11.2Q
Total
Sulfur
1.16
22.2
U.O/7
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.41
20.9
U.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.1
Total
Sulfur
78. k
-------
A-172.
TABLE A-62
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mlnp Coal CrusVied to 1-1/2 Tnnh -x 0
BCR Lot No. 183U
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.51
Ash
12.8
Volatile
Matter
27.0
Fixed
Carbon
60.20
Total
Sulfur
^.U8
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.10
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.86
Organic"
Sulfur
0.52
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,508
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o Bli.5
Sink at 1.60 15.5
Composite 100.0
Ash
7.^8
U7.6
13.61
Total
Sulfur
l.lU
15.7
3.UO
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.61
15.0
2.8U
Pyritic
Sulfur
7R-7
Total
Sulfur
67.2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesht
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 8l.7
Sink at 1.60 18.^
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.96
U5.6
13.21
Total
Sulfur
0.88
l^.Q
3.26
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
^*.k
2.72
Pyritic
Sulfur
88.5
Total
Sulfur
7l*. 7
-------
TABLE A-6l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO. 7-A SEAM. GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1833
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-173.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
1.8U
Ash
27.0
Volatile
Matter
3U.6
Fixed
Carbon
38. kO
Total
Sulfur
3.89
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.62
Organic
Sulfur
1.18
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10.263
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 68.6
Sink at 1.60 ^i.U
Composite 100_0
Ash
6.37
69.5
26. IP
Total
Sulfur
2.97
6.?6
U.03
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.22
5.79
2.S3
Pyritic
Sulfur
53.lt
Total
Sulfur
23.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 65.0
Sink at 1.6o 35.0
Composite 1QO_0
Ash
6.99
61.8
26.17
Total
Sulfur
2.56
6.12
3.81
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.95
5.20
2.1*
Pyritic
Sulfur
63.7
Total
Sulfur
3U.2
-------
TABLE A-6^
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification UPPER KTTTANWTNB SRAM, CAMBRIA nOTIHTY, PAT
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1836
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.51
Ash
33.0
Volatile
Matter
1^.?
Fixed
Carbon
52.70
Total
Sulfur
1.17
Sulfate
Sulfur
o.ok
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.00
Organic
Sulfur
0.13
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
10.075
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 55. q
Sink at 1.6o l^.i
Composite 100 0
Ash
7.06
6Q.U
35.06
Total
Sulfur
0.6o
1.06
1.20
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.16
1-71
o.Sli
Pyritic
Sulfur
RU.p
Total
Sulfur
Ufl.7
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 52. q
Sink at 1.60 l;7.i
Composite 100<0
Ash
7.62
65.8
35.02
Total
Sulfur
0.57
l.QO
1.20
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.18
1.65
0.87
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.0
Total
Sulfur
51.3
-------
TABLE A-65
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
A-175-
Coal
UPPER FREEPORT SEAM. CAMBRIA COUMTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
1837
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.51
Ash
16.0
Volatile
Matter
26.8
Fixed
Carbon
57.20
Total
Sulfur
3.9^
Sulfate
Sulfur
O.Ik
Pyritic
Sulfur
3-19
Organic
Sulfur
0.6l
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
12,827
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, 1
Float at 1.60 79.8
Sink at 1.60 20.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.90
55.7
16.76
Total
Sulfur
1.3*
n.U
3.78
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.60
12.4
2.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
81.2
Total
Sulfur
66.0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 76.9
Sink at 1.6o 23.1
Composite 100.00
Ash
5.50
52A
16.33
Total
Sulfur
0.91
13.2
3-75
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.22
12.3
3.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
93-1
Total
Sulfur
76.9
-------
A-176.
TABLE A-66
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritio Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification NO- 6 SEAM. MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1838
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.39
Ash
6.52
Volatile
Matter
kk.6
Fixed
Carbon
kQ.90
Total
Sulfur
3.10
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.09
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.55
Organic
Sulfur
1.146
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13,222
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 92.1
Sink at 1.6o 7.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
3.72
39.0
6.51
Total
Sulfur
1.98
13A
2.88
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.37
11.2
1.23
Pyritic
Sulfur
76.1
Total
Sulfur
36.1
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 88.1
Sink at 1.60 11.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
3.23
28.6
6.25
Total
Sulfur
1.90
10.9
2.97
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.28
9.0U
1.32
Pyritic
Sulfur
81.9
Total
Sulfur
38.7
-------
TABLE A-67
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
MIDDLE KETTANNING SEAM,
Coal Identification CLEAKFIEIJ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Rav Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
A-177.
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
1839
Weight $, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.1*2
Ash
21.lt
Volatile
Matter
25.0
Fixed
Carbon
53.60
Total
Sulfur
9.24
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.12
Pyritic
Sulfur
8.U5
Organic
Sulfur
0.6?
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
11,812
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 67.7
Sink at 1.6o 32.3
Composite 100.0
Ash
10.4
45.6
21.77
Total
Sulfur
4.16
18.2
8.69
Pyritic
Sulfur
3.23
17.4
7.81
Pyritic
Sulfur
61.8
Total
Sulfur
55.0
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 66.3
Sink at 1.60 33.7
Composite 100.0
Ash
8.24
48.4
21.77
Total
Sulfur
3.04
20.2
8.82
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.06
19.4
7.90
Pyritic
Sulfur
75.6
Total
Sulfur
67.1
-------
A-178.
TABLE A-68
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification LOWER KITTAMNIMG SEAM, INDIANA COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch y O
BCR'Xot No. 1840
Chemical Analysis, As Received;
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.58
Ash
12.6
Volatile
Matter
28.6
Fixed
Carbon
58.80
Total
Sulfur
3.5k
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.20
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.63
Organic
Sulfur
n.vi
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
~n k3k
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 80.1
Sink at 1.60 19.9
Composite 100.0
Ash
k.go
1*6.8
13.21*
Total
Sulfur
1.30
12.2
3. 1*7
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.1*9
11.2
2.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
81. k
Total
Sulfur
63.3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 79.7
Sink at 1.60 20.3
Composite 100>0
Ash
I*. 18
1*6.6
12.79
Total
Sulfur
1.06
13.2
3.52
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.28
12.3
2.72
Pyritic
Sulfur
89.lt
Total
Sulfur
70.1
-------
TABLE A-69
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpn-M f-i na-M on MIDDLE KITTAMING SEAM. CLARION COUNTY, PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
A-179.
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
2.26
Ash
7.61)
Volatile
Matter
^6.6
Fixed
Carbon
55.76
Total
Sulfur
0.68
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.22
Organic
Sulfur
0.1A
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13.3U3
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, $
Float at 1.60 91.0
Sink at 1.60 9.0
Composite 100.0
Ash
k.6l
38.2
7.63
Total
Sulfur
0.56
1.09
0.6l
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.09
0.69
0.14
Pyritic
Sulfur
59.1
Total
Sulfur
17.6
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 87.9
Sink at 1.60 12.1
Composite 100.0
Ash
If.Mf
32.0
7.77
Total
Sulfur
0.56
1.38
0.66
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.10
0.98
0.21
Pyritic
Sulfur
5k.5
Total
Sulfur
17.6
-------
A-180.
TABLE A-70
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Tdpnt.i f-1 na+.i nn LOWER CLARION SEAM, CLARION COUNTYT PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Moisture
0.73
Ash
16.2
Volatile
Matter
38.6
Fixed
Carbon
U5.20
Total
Sulfur
9.12
Sulfate
Sulfur
0.18
Pyritic
Sulfur
7.6?
Organic
Sulfur
1.27
Calorific
Value, Btu/lb
13^11
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh;
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis
Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.6o 73.2
Sink at 1.60 26.8
Composite 100.0
Ash
6.^2
U8.9
17.88
Total
Sulfur
3.U2
2U.O
8.9U
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.01
21.1
7.13
Pyritic
Sulfur
73.8
Total
Sulfur
62.5
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,Dry Basis Weight, % Reduction
Float and Sink,
Weight, %
Float at 1.60 70. h
Sink at 1.60 29.6
Composite 100.0
Ash
5-63
Mt.8
17-22
Total
Sulfur
3.05
2k.O
9-25
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.57
21.5
7.1*6
Pyritic
Sulfur
79.5
Total
Sulfur
66.6
-------
B-181.
TABLE B-l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification T.OWKR FRKKPOTJ'? ST?AM, ABMSTROW; nramrv, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
1866
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
37.6
33.0
7.2
0.3
7.5
l*.l
ll*.7
0.6
1Q.1*
1.5
1.0
2.5
78.1
8l. o.
1.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
95. 5
i*.5
100.0
20. Q
75.9
3.2
100.0
60.6
3Q.1*
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.1*7
0.1*2
0.50
0-52
0.50
0.1*1*
O.Q.5
0.38
0.83
0.27
0.38
0.31
0.1*5
0.1*5
0.38
0.52
1.13
Ash
7.18
7-1*2
Q.2l*
117.7
10.07
17.!;
70-7
66.0
SQ.IH
85. q
6U.o
77.27
7.65
7.97
61*. 75
19.U3
18. Q
Total
Sulfur
1.08
1 .15
1.1*6
7.3?
1 .72
2.07
3.5U
32.6
I*.l6
li.l*2
38.8
17.07
1.17
1.19
36.1*8
2.17
2.02
Ultimate
Carbon
13.6
5.73
ll*.8
q.30
ll*.35
-------
B-182.
TABLE B-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification LQWRR FRKKPDRT SEAM, ARMSTROWT, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Ra;w Run-of-Minp Coal Crushed tn 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
1866
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.50
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
71.5
11.2
1.8
0.1
l.o.
1.5
11.1
0.6
13.2
0.2
2.0
2.2
8k.6
86.0
2.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
93.7
6.3
100.0
11.7
83.7
h.6
100.0
8.6
91. U
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moisture
0.75
o.in
0.2l*
0.20
0.2k
0.6l
l.Ul
0.29
1.26
1.30
0.16
0.26
0.70
0.70
0.19
0.76
1.08
Ash
12.0
11.0
is.U
21.8
IS. 80
26.2
71.7
65.8
66.11
87.5
63.6
65.66
11.96
12.20
6U.11
20.28
19.6
Total
Sulfur
1.00
0.94
1.22
5.29
I.Ufl
1.77
2.22
^2.0
^.5U
U.75
Ul.U
^8.25
1.00
1.01
39.2?
2.16
2.12
Ultimate
Carbon
15.8
5.13
16.2
15.25
16.11
-------
B-183.
TABLE B-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARBISON COUNTY, OHIO
Saw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
1950
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.50
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
ij-3.7
38.6
5.6
0.3
5.9
2.1
8.1
1.0
11.2
0.2
o.k
0.6
88.2
90.0
l.U
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
QU.U
5.6
100.0
19.0
72.5
8.5
100.0
38.0
62.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.68
1.12
O.U7
0.2U
0.1+5
0.11
0.3*1
0.2U
0.29
0.98
0.15
O.V7
1.35
1.33
0.21
1.22
2.98
Ash
6.09
6.32
7.90
H5.2
9.99
18.5
7lt. 2
61.8
^62.5,6
83.1
63.8
71.13
6.U5
6.59
62.37
13.^2
13.U
Total
Sulfur
1.1*3
1.7U
2.U8
16.6
3.27
5.72
5.18
Ui.U
8.36
U.lU
37.9
25.07
1.69
1.73
Uo.tto
2.58
2.7]
Ultimate
Carbon
k.Q
5.5
5.7
5.62
5.06
-------
B-2.Sk.
TABLE B-4
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ^0 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
1950
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
77.0
14.5
0.48
0.02
0.5
2.6
^.9
O.T
6.8
0.1
1.1
1.2
92.0
94.6
1.4
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
95.6
4.4
100.0
^8.1
57.0
4.9
100.0
9.9
90.1
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moistur
1.20
1.^2
0.55
0.92
0.57
0.74
0.70
0.52
0.71
0.88
0.76
0.77
1.22
1.20
0.71
1.18
2.92
Ash
8.01
6.72
9.27
^8.0
10.5^
17.7
67. 4
61.1
48.26
74.0
64.0
64.99
7.82
8.09
6^.85
-^11*26
13.0
Total
Sulfur
1.57
1.42
1.90
9.95
2.25
4.29
7.28
41.8
7.8^
7.42
4^.7
40.11
1.55
1.62
4^.29
2.44
2.84
Ultimate
Carbon
6.^
8.0
5.0
5.^0
5.28
-------
B-185.
TABLE B-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARBISOM COUNTY. OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0. Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 1950
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
U7.9
37.3
5.2
l.U
6.6
O.k
6.7
0.8
7.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
91.8
90.8
1.0
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
79. 0
21.0
100.0
U.6
81+.9
10.5
100.0
2U.7
75.3
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.17
1.1+6
1.21
0.36
1.03
0.60
i.ta
0.38
1.28
1.56
0.33
0.63
1.28
1.29
0.37
1.28
2.6U
Ash
6.12
6.36
11.8
39. 5
17.62
18.1
7U.2
62.2
70.36
8U.2
6U.9
69.67
7.05
6.59
62.7!+
12.23
12.0
Total
Sulfur
1.72
1.98
1+.02
12.3
5.76
1+.88
6.1+8
39.2
Q.8U
5.09
1+1.8
32.73
2.12
1.97
39.72
2.82
3.00
Ultimate
Carbon
9.5
U.8
U.6
U.65
8.52
-------
B-186.
TABLE B-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification wo. fi.A SEAM, HARBISON COUNTY, rnrm
-Zones A. Bf and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6/h/68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. ]qqo
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Teble Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
82.2
12.8
0.39
0.01
o.U
2.0
l.Q
0.2
U.I
0.02
O.U8
0.5
95. h
97. U
0.68
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
96.7
3.3
100.0
U8.fi
U5.U
6.0
100.0
U.3
95.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moistur
o.oo
1.00
0.86
0.50
0.85
o.6l
0.60
0.18
0.58
0.70
O.lU
0.16
O.lU
0.15
0.15
0.16
2.67
Ash
5.20
6.03
9.21
50.8
10.58
17-7
5U.O
6?. 2
36.Q1
6U.5
6^.7
6^-7^
5.^3
5.5Q
6^.56
6.02
6.52
Total
Sulfur
1 _^Q
l.UO
2.02
19. ^
2.59
U.OQ
11.4
U0.7
Q.6l
1Q.U _
U0.2
^q.n
i.Uo
i.Us
Uo.^1;
1.02
2.0U
Ultimate
Carbon
6.U
•n.8
5.6
5.Q5
5.8^
-------
B-187,
TABLE B-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification N0. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY. OHIO
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6A/68) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (6/13/68)
BCR Sample No.
1Q50
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
75. k
11.7
0.3Q
0.01
n.h
2.1
8.U
1.0
11.7
0.12
0.68
0.8
87.5
8Q.8
1.7
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.7
3.3
100.0
1Q.7
71.8
8.5
100.0
15.0
85.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.00
1 .00
0.86
o.5o
0.85
0.61
1.25
0.3U
1.05
1.U2
0.20
0.38
O.lU
0.15
0.28
0.25
2.6U
Ash
5.20
6.03
Q.21
50.8
10.58
17.77
6Q.Q1
62. UO
5Q.OO
80. 91
6U.05
66.58
5.33
5.65
63.07
12.10
12.0
Total
Sulfur
1.3Q
!TUo
2.O?
1Q.3
2.5Q
U.?3
7.52
3Q.50
Q.5Q
7.U8
Uo.67
35. 6q
l.to
\rk7
3Q.Q7
2.63
2. on
Ultimate
Carbon
8.Q
6.3
5.3
5.1*5
7.l£
-------
B-188.
TABLE B-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification
Concentrating Table Tests
WES-mnTffiT.Ai\m cntro-iY, PEIWHYLVANTA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2012
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
56.9
22. <5
3.0
2.1
5.1
0.2
11.3
1.2
12.7
0.8
1.6
2.1*
81*. 0
83.0
2.8
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
57.9
1*2.1
100.0
1.5
88.8
9.7
100.0
32.1
67. 0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moisture
0.58
0.1*2
0.51
0.30
0.1*6
0.62
0.03
0.22
0.86
o.l*l*
0.05
0.18
0.53
0.53
0.12
0.56
1.22
Ash
6.7l*
5.06
111. 3
1*5. q
27.60
16.3
76.2
62. k
68.66
70.1*
62.5
67.02
7.78
6.82
62.1*6
16.06
20.7
Total
Sulfur
1.50
1.51
3.66
8.68
5.77
3.80
5.81
36.5
8.76
0.10
1*0.5
30.U5
1.76
1.50
38.78
3.31*
3.1*3
Ultimate
Carbon
10.8
7.3
8-7
8.25
0.60
-------
B-189.
TABLE B-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Pine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
coal identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A, Bf Cf ?/8 Inch x 0 Run (6/25/68^ Crushed to ?0 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2012
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
80.7
ll*.2
0.87
0.0?
0.0
1.0
1.7
0.1
?.7
0.1
0.1*
0.5
95.8
07.7
0.5
10O.O
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.5
?.5
100.0
52.0
1*6.6
1.1*
100.0
10.1
80. o
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.?6
0.1*8
0.52
0.56
0.52
0.1*1*
O.T7
0.22
0.1*0
O.?0
0.28
0.28
0.?8
0.?8
0.27
0.?8
1.15
Ash
1*.06
5.68
8.06
T7.1
Q.Ol*
20.1
50.1
50.1*
?1*.6
57.0
60.6
60.2
5.12
5.1*0
60. ?6
6. lift
6.01*
Total
Sulfur
1.06
1.07
1.7?
10.6
2.01*
2.70
0.61*
30.?
6.1*0
26.0
1*2.0
1*0.^8
1.07
1.10
1*1.1*6
1.1*7
1.65
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-190.
TABLE B-10
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, vmsTMORRLAwn COUNTY
Composite of 3/8 x 0 Run (6/2S/68) and 10 Mesh x 0 Run
BCR Sample No.
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at l.cO
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
68.5
12.1
0.77
0.0^
0.8
1.8
12.7
1.3
15.8
0.9
1.9
2.8
8iTli
83.2
3.2
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06. 5
?.c;
100.0
11. k
80. h
8.2
100.0
32.1
67.9
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.36
O.U8
O.S2
o.sfi
0^9
0.146
0.87
0.22
0.77
O.lt2
0.09
0.20
0.38
0.38
O.lU
O.kk
1.22
Ash
U.Q6
5.68
8.06
Tf.l
Q.QU
19.68
73.32
62.17
66.29
76.91
62.20
66.92
5.12
5.U3
62.19
16.51
20.7
Total
Sulfur
1.06
1 .07
1 .73
in. 6
2.6k
2.90
6.23
36.72
8.35
11,06
k0.7k
31.21
1.07
1.11
39.11
3.07
3. In
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-191.
TABLE B-ll
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification H0. 8 SEAM, .TFWTOSOTI COTTOW, nTrrn _
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2013
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
3q.6
U5.i
U.6
3.1
7-7
0,2
6.3
O.q
7.U
0.06
o.iU
0.2
02. U
89.5
i.oU
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
SQ.6
lin.U
inn.o
p.k
81;. q
12.7
10O.O
2Q.2
70.8
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.14-3
0.22
O.U8
0.51
O.Uq
0,7U
1.28
0.10;
1.16
1.16
0.26
0,S2
0.33
0.33
O.U2
0.39
3.00
Ash
7.8U
8.18
11.2
Ufi.fi
25.58
13.8
7U.O
57.0
70-Uo
78.8
60.6
65. Ql
Q.U8
8.19
57. Uq
lU.J.0
15.6
Total
Sulfur
3.11
3.13
3.82
7.iq
5.18
U.I?
5.65
38.2
q.75
8.6?
Ul.7
32. Ok
3.2q
3.16
38.67
3.83
3.78
Ultimate
Carbon
17.5
8.5
Q.O
8.85
16.35
-------
B-192.
TABLE B-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY. OHIO
Zones A. B. and C. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6/28/68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
78.0
1U.5
2.0
0.1
2.1
2.9
2.1
0.1
5.1
0.1
o.?
°-3
9U.6
97.^
0.3
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
96.8
3.2
100.0
57. !f
Ul.3
1.3
100.0
31.0
69T0
1OO.O
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moistur
0.70
O.l6
0.28
1.02
0.30
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.39
1.06
o.?U
O.U9
0.61
0.60
0.29
0.60
3.77
Ash
7.82
7-71
10.1
39.0
11.02
18.2
U5.6
60.8
30.07
56.6
61.6
60. os
7.87
8.16
61.33
9.16
9.22
Total
Sulfur
2.70
2.7^
3.27
k.7k
3.32
^. 57
8.16
1*3.7
6.56
18.0
U2.7
^s.oU
2.72
2.77
U3.03
3.01
3.0U
Ultimate
Carbon
7.0
23.0
8.0
12. 6s
7.68
-------
B-193.
TABLE B-13
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritlc Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification WQ. 8 SEAMf JEFFERSON comjry, ONTO
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6/28/68) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7/5/681
BCR Sample No.
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
Y2.1
ll.h
1.8
0.1
1.9
2.9
8.2
1.0
12.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
87.1*
90.2
1.3
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.8
3.2
100.0
21+.0
67.8
8.2
100.0
32.0
68.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.70
0.36
0.28
1.02
0.30
O.kl
1.07
0.1*3
0.86
1.10
0.25
0.52
0.6l
0.60
0.3Q
0.6k
3.00
Ash
7.82
7.71
10.1
3Q.O
11.02
17.00
67. Ul
57.38
5l*. 71
6U.Q3
6l. IQ
62. 3Q
7.87
8.17
58.26
13.8
]5.6
Total
Sulfur
2.70
?_7U
3.27
k.7k
3.32
U.51;
6.23
38.75
8. UP
lU.lifi
U2.2Q
33. 30.
2.72
2.78
3Q.57
3.57
3.78
Ultimate
Carbon
16.^5
17.56
8.U1
11. 3U
1U.5Q
-------
B-191*.
TABLE B-lU
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification
Concentrating Table Tests
. 6 sTCflM) nnuiMBTANA fimiwry, OHTO
Raw Kun-nf-Minp Coal Crushed t.n 3/8 Inch x Or Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No . 2026 _
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.50
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.50
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
46.5
36. Q
7.9
3.1
11.0
0.1
1.9
2.1
U.I
0.1
i.U
1.5
Vb.k
Ql.U
3.5
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
72.0
28.0
100.0
2.3
U6.8
50.9
100.0
5.5
9U.5
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.08
1.10
o.sU
0.58
0.55
1.1*0
0.92
O.U8
0.71
0.68
0.18
0.21
1.03
i.oU
0.^6
3 .00
2.82
Ash
3.86
U.o8
7.Ul
3Q.3
16. 3U
12.1
55.2
60.0
56.65
52. k
62. U
61.85
5.39
U.P6
60.06
8.35
8.16
Total
Sulfur
1.8U
2tQ2
3.52
17.8
7.52
k.k2
22. U
Ul.8
31.86
28.3
U3.8
U2 .Q5
2.57
2.06
U2.60
U.38
U.17
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-195.
TABLE B-15
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification m, f, SPAM, mmim-rawA r.ram^J nnrn
Zones AP Bf and C, 3/8 Tnnh v 0 Bun (7-PQ-68)
BCR Sample No.
tn 30 Mesh
2026
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
79.9
IS. 5
0.67
0.03
0.7
1.8
1.1
0.2
3.1
0.1
0.7
0.8
96.1
97.9
0.9
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.2
3.8
100.0
57.8
37.1
5.1
100.0
1^.3
85.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.72
0.<52
O.Q3
1 .00
O.Q3
1.28
1.30
0.38
1.2U
0.1*6
0.7k
0.70
1.59
1.58
0.66
1.57
P.6U
Ash
3.73
3.60
5. It!
37.3
6.62
2^.2
in.6
60.6
32.51
56.9
62.6
61.78
3.73
U.09
62.16
s.oq
5.18
Total
Sulfur
1.66
1 .S3
2.08
ia.7
2.70
S.OQ
is.6
Uo.8
10.81
31.0
kk.6
U2.66
l.6s
1.70
U3.76
2-26
P.S?
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-196.
TABLE B-16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Nn f, ^mj r.numimiMi rnrrraw^
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Bun (7-29-68) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-31-68)
BCR Sample No . 2026 __
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
75. If
Ik. 6
0.67
0.07
0.7
1.8
2.P,
2.3
7.0
0.2
2.1
2.3
90.7
92.5
k.k
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.2
7.8
100.0
25.7
ln.U
32. Q
100. 0
8.7
91.3
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.72
0.92
0.07
1.00
0.07
1.20
1.05
O.U7
0.02
0.57
0.37
0.70
1.58
1.58
O.U2
1.51
2.82
Ash
3.73
3.60
5.U1
77 .7
6.62
27.52
50.51
60. 05
U6.71
5U.65
62.1+7
61-79
3-73
1+.10
61.20
8.08
8.16
Total
Sulfur
1.66
1.53
2.08
18.7
2.70
5.05
20.05
Ul.71
27.32
2Q.65
kk.07
U2.82
1.65
1.71
U2.8U
U.ll
U.17
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-197.
TABLE B-l?
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal identification LOWER KTTTAMTNft SRAM, TTTOIANA cninwy, PENWSYLVAMTA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Tnch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 2031
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
61.1
16.7
1.1
2.6
5.7
0.1
9.9
1.6
11.8
1.0
1.7
2.7
81.5
81.2
s.3
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
55.1
1*U.9
100.0
2.0
72.0
26.0
100.0
17.1
62.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.18
O.lU
0.22
0.26
0.2^
0.28
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.2U
0.00
0.09
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.19
2.90
Ash
S.«56
6.13
13.0
1*2.7
26. lU
16.U
68.8
61.6
65.88
65.0
62.8
61.62
7.09
6.00
61 _QQ
16.71
15.2
Total
Sulfur
1.6s
1,8=5
•3.02
9A2
5.89
1.75
8.96
19.6
16.82
9.1*
la.i
29. te
1.98
1.75
Uo.m
1^.77
U.l+2
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
B-198.
TABLE B-18
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
coal Identification T.nmR KTTTATTOTMO SRAM, TMDTATIA coumv, PHTOSYLVAWTA
Zones A, R, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7/18/68^ Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2031
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
79.1
1U.6
0.67
0.03
0.7
2.7
2.5
0.1
5.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
9l*.l*
97.1
0.2
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
06.2
^t.8
100.0
50.9
1+7.5
1.6
100.0
7l*.6
25. k
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.31
0.20
0.60
0.1*1
0.50
0.58
1.19
0.39
0.87
0.52
0.1*0
O.U9
0.29
0.30
0.1*0
0.33
2.10
Ash
5.1*0
6.16
8.82
^8.Q
Q..C36
18.6
1*7.7
61.2
33.10
63.7
61.8
63.22
5.63
5.99
61.50
7.26
6.00
Total
Sulfur
T.sU
1 .Uo
1.76
8.00
2.00
2. U5
7.52
30.5
5.1*5
19.5
1*2.9
25.1*1*
1.51*
1.56
1*1.20
1.81
1.82
Ultimate
Carbon
9.5
16.5
7.5
lU.21
8.5
-------
B-199.
TABLE B-19
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests - Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification LOWKR KITTANNING SEAMf INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7/18/68) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7/2U/68)
BCR Sample No.
2031
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
66.0
12.2
0.58
0.02
0.6
2.5
12.0
3.7
18.2
1.2
1.8
3.0
78.8
81.3
5.5
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
96.2
3.8
100.0
13.7
66.0
20.3
100.0
Uo.o
60.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moistur*
0.31
0.20
0.60
O.Ul
0.59
0.5l*
0.1+2
0.26
o.Uo
0.29
0.02
0.13
0.30
0.30
0.18
0.31
2. 90
Ash
5.U9
6.16
8.82
38.9
9.96
18. 3U
65.11
61.59
57.99
61;. 78
62.71;
63.56
5.63
6.01
61.97
16.90
15.2
Total
Sulfur
-i-.su
1.U9
r.76
8.00
2.00
2.61
8.71
39.60
lU.iU
11.12
Ul.39
29.28
1.SU
1.57
U0.19
U.66
k.kz
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
C-201.
TABLE C-l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 1, Run No. 2
Run No. 2 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions:
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure 5
Dry Feed, tph 0.5
2 in.
1-Q2_
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
22.2
1.39
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
86.8
6.1
93.1
4.3
2.6
6.9
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
93.2
6.8
100.0
62.0
38.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.47
43.9
9.02
8.64
59.0
27.78
10.3
10.0
Total Sulfur
1.16
9.80
1.75
1.89
20.8
9.08
2.26
2.12
-------
C-202.
TABLE C-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test Ho. 1, Run No. 3
Run No. 3 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type g
Vortex Finder Clearance 1.25 in.
Inlet Pressure 5 psi
Dry Feed, tph 0.5
1.02
22.2
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids 1.1*0
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
Q0.5
6.S
97.0
1.2
1.8
3.0
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
93.3
6.7
100.0
38.14
61.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
7.00
1*9-3
9.83
7.98
61*. 0
1*2.1*9
10.81
10.1
Total Sulfur
1.22
12.lt
1.97
1.76
23.2
ll*.97
2.36
2.22
-------
C-203-
TABLE C-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 1, Run No. 4
Run No. 4 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance 1.25 in.
Inlet Pressure 5psi
Dry Feed, tph 0.5
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids
1.02
22.2
1.39
870
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.66
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
69.U
6.2
75.6
21.2
3.2
24.lt
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
91.8
8.2
100.0
86.8
13.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.44
43.1
9.44
6.54
54.8
12.91
10.29
10.0
Total Sulfur
1.08
7.96
1.64
1.36
18.1
3-57
2.11
2.12
-------
C-20U.
TABLE C-^
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6- A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO _
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 2, Run No. 1
Run No. 1 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance 1.0 in.
Inlet Pressure fl pSj
Dry Feed, tph 1.1
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids
1.02
l.lfl
870
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
81.8
6.2
88.0
8.3
3.7
12.0
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
93.0
7.0
100.0
69.0
31.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.88
U7.0
9.69
7.03
65.it
25.12
11. 5U
11. *K)
Total Sulfur
1.20
9.37
1.77
1.52
17.9
6.60
2.35
2.^2
-------
C-205.
TABLE C-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 2, Run No. 2
Run No. 2 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance 1.0 in.
Inlet Pressure 8 -psi
Dry Feed, tph 3.7
1.08
70.8
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids 25.0
l.Ul
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
83.7
7.7
91.^
5.5
3.1
8.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
91.6
8.1*
100.0
61*. 1*
35.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.20
1*5.9
9.53
6.36
65.0
27.21*
11.05
11.1*0
Total Sulfur
1.12
11.0
1.95
1.38
19.8
7.91*
2.1*7
2.1*2
-------
C-206.
TABLE C-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Critic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification HO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x O Test No. 2, Run No. 3
Run No. 3 BOS Sample No. 195Q
Operating Conditions:
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance 1.0 in.
Inlet Pressure 5 psi
Dry Feed, tph 2.3
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids P5.0
in.2
l.Ul
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
81.7
7.6
89.^
6.7
1*.0
10.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
91.5
8.5
100.0
62.8
37.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.10
1*5.1
9.1*2
6.52
65.9
28.61
11.1*7
11.1*
Total Sulfur
1.15
10. If
I.*
1.*
18.8
7.81*
2.57
2.56
-------
C-207.
TABLE C-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification HO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 3, Run No. 3
Run No. 3 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
S Specific Gravity, Pulp
2.0 in. Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
6 psi (Gale.') Specific Gravity, Solids
0.7 Weight Percent, Solids
1.O9
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
90.9
6.8
97.7
l.l
l.p
2.3
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
93.0
7.0
100.0
U6.7
53.3
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
5.80
48. 4
8.78
Q.?6
66.1
39.56
9.49
10.0
Total Sulfur
1.14
10.6
1.80
p.o4
18.2
10.65
2.00
2.22
-------
C-208.
TABLE C-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 3, Run No. k
Run No. k BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions:
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
S Specific Gravity, Pulp
2.5 in. Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
6 psi (Gale.) Specific Gravity, Solids
0.7 Weight Percent, Solids
1.02
1.1*0
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
87.U
8.0
95. U
0.6
k.O
k.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
91.6
8.U
100.0
13.1
86.9
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
5.72
53.2
9.71
8.60
69.6
61.61
12.10
11.0
Total Sulfur
1.1U
13.2
2.15
1.9U
2U.6
21.63
3.05
2.51*
-------
C-209.
TABLE C-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 3, Run No. 5
Run No. 5 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
6 psi (Calc.) Specific Gravity, Solids
0,7 _ Weight Percent, Solids
in.
1.02
36.8
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
8Q.U
6.^
QS.7
1.8
2.5
k.1
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
Q3.U
6.6
100.0
Uo.q
59.1
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight Percent
Ash
S.U6
25. U
6.78
8.U?
67.0
h^..0k
B.ik
10.2
Total Sulfur
1.1?
Tl.fi
1.81
1.8Q
20. h
IP. 8^
2.28
2.^1
-------
C-210.
TABLE C-10
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification HO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0 Test No. 3» Run No. 6
Run No. 6 BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
S Specific Gravity, Pulp
3.5 in. Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
8 psi (CalcJ Specific Gravity, Solids
1.0 Weight Percent, Solids
55.2
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.66
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
85.2
5.7
90. 9
5.5
3.~6
9.1
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
93.7
6.?
100.0
60.0
ito.o
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
5.32_
53.4
8.35
8.18
65.6
31.15
10. ^
10.8
Total Sulfur
1.11
10.9
1.73
1.77
19.7
8.9l*
2.39
-------
C-211.
TABLE C-ll
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification LOWER KITTAMING SEAM. INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0. Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No.
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2-95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
59.6
18.2
3.5
2.5
6.0
0.3
10.9
1.1
11*. 5
0.3
l.l*
1.7
83.8
81.6
1*.7
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
58.7
1+1.3
100.0
1.8
75.3
22.9
100.0
16.4
83.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.60
0.57
0.1*7
0.38
0.1*3
O.U8
0.52
0.32
0.1*7
0.70
0.21*
0.32
0.58
0.59
0.30
0.56
2.77
Ash
5.86
6.52
12.1
1*0.8
23.95
13.7
6Q.6
61.8
66.81
72.6
62.8
fli.Ul
7.31
6.31
62.10
16.90
12. 1*
Total
Sulfur
1-.61*
1.82
2.80
9.ll*
5.1*9
3.06
8.23
39.6
15.32
12.8
1*2.6
37.71
1.95
1.7^
1*0.1*9
U.50
3.66
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
C-212.
TABLE C-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification LOWER KITTANNING SEAM, INDIANA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-11-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 5, Run No. 1 BCR Sample No. 2031
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph ~0/7
s_
1 in.
5 psi
l.Qg
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
1.36
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
Ql _1
5.P
of,. ^
P.Q
0.8
^.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
<*.6
•5.U
100.0
79.6
SO.k
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
U.U6
37.0
6.22
6.1?
51.8
15. U8
6.56
6.68
Total Sulfur
Irl8
8.83
1.59
1.30
12.6
3.61
1.66
1.72
-------
C-213.
TABLE C-13
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Critic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Ttro-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification LOWER
SV.AM. TWDTAWA COUNTY. FRITOKTVT.VAWTA
BCR Sample No..
2031
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-11-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
83.8
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
12.it
7.31
Total Sulfur
1.66
1.95
Weight % Reduction
Ash
in.o
Total
Sulfur
1*6.7
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 5. Run No. 1 Run Date 12-10-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C. Crashed
to 30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
•Weight %
100.0
96.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
6.56
6.22
Total Sulfur
1.66
1.59
Weight % Reduction
Ash
5.2
Total
Sulfur
k.2
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
80.7
6.22
1.59
U9.8
56.6
-------
C-21U.
TABLE C-lU
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification LOWER KITTANNOTG SEAM, INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-11-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 5, Run No. 2 BCR Sample No. 2031
Operating Conditions:
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph ~ 1.1
1 in.
8
1.02
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids 1.37
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
55.2
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.6*0
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
83.5
3.8
87.3
10.8
1.9
12.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
95.7
U.3
100.0
85.1
14.9
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
1*.1*8
38.2
5.93
7.06
1*8.6
13.25
6.86
7.70
Total Sulfur
1.21
8.93
1.51*
1.3U
8.26
2.37
1.65
1.82
-------
C-215.
TABLE C-15
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification LOWER KITTANNING SEAM. INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
BCR Sample No. 203!
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-11-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
83.8
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
12.it
7.31
Total Sulfur
3-66
1.95
Weight
-------
C-216.
TABLE C-16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COTJIMRTANA COTIWTY, OHTO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x Or Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 9096
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
40.6
42.5
9-7
1.3
11.0
0.6
3.7
1.2
5.5
0.04
0.36
0.4
9^.1
93.4
1.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
88.5
11.5
100.0
11.7
66.6
21.7
100.0
9.6
90.4
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
2.58
2.64
0.95
0.79
0.93
0.83
1.38
0.63
1.15
0.96
0.17
0.25
2.41
2.43
0.52
2.34
3.20
Ash
4.53
4.55
8.20
?Q.6
11.81
16.2
53.0
60.0
50.21
57.2
63.0
62.44
5.39
4.99
60.75
8.08
7.93
Total
Sulfur
1.68
1.64
?.S8
l?.6
3.85
3.88
13.4
41.2
18.32
25.0
44.8
42.90
1.92
1.77
42.10
2.98
2.90 1
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
C-217.
TABLE C-17
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 6
Run No. 1
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph 0.7
S
1 in.
5 psi
BCR Sample No.
2026
l.Qg
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm 3^.2
Specific Gravity, Solids 1.35
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product,
Weight
Percent
QO.U
?.p
93. U
5.7
0.9
6.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
Q6.8
^.?
100.0
86.3
13.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
?.7k
Ul.6
5.95
5.36
52.6
11.83
5.UO
5.52
Total Sulfur
i.nfi
17 6
1.59
1.32
27.2
U. 87
1.81
1.77
-------
C-218.
TABLE C-18
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification HO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIANA COUMTY, OHIO
BCR Sample No. 2026
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-18-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
9^.1
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7.93
5.39
Total Sulfur
2.90
1.92
Weight % Reduction
Ash
32.0
Total
Sulfur
33.8
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 6. Run No. 1 Run Date.
12-10-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones Af B. and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
93. ^
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
5.1*0
U.95
Total Sulfur
1.81
1.59
Weight % Reduction
Ash
8.3
Total
Sulfur
12.2
OVo- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
87.9
U.95
1.59
37.6
U5.2
-------
C-219.
TABLE C-19
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM. COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 6, Run No. 2
Run No. 2
BCR Sample No.
2026
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
M
1.02
1 in.
55.2
8 psi
1.1
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
1.36
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
82. 6
2.7
85.3
13.6
1.1
11*. 7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
96.8
3.2
100.0
92.8
7.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
3.63
39.7
^. 78
5.62
1*6.2
8.51*
5.33
6.51
Total Sulfur
1.12
16.0
1.60
1.1*7
17.2
2.60
1.75
1.91*
-------
C-220.
TABLE C-20
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning"
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIAMA COUNTY. OHIO
BCR Sample No. 3026
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-18-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
91*.!
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7-93
5.39
Total Sulfur
pTon
1.92
Weight % Reduction
Ash
32.0
Total
Sulfur
33.8
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 6. Run No. 2 Run Date 1P-90-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A. B. and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
85-3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
5.33
U.?8
Total Sulfur
1.75
1.60
Weight % Reduction
Ash
10.3
Total
Sulfur
8.6
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
80.3
if. 78
1.60
39.7
W*.8
-------
C-221.
TABLE C-21
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAMf WESTMORELAND COUNTYf PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 2012
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
55.5
22.2
3.3
2.5
5.8
0.2
13.3
1.7
15.2
0.1+
0.9
1.3
83.5
81.2
2.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
56.1
1+3.9
100.0
1.5
87.7
10.8
100.0
27. 1+
72.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.72
0.6k
0.1+7
0.60
0.53
0.5*+
0.86
0.61
0.83
0.70
0.3*+
0.1+1+
0.69
0.69
0.52
0.70
1.78
Ash
5.M+
6.08
13.0
1+7.6
28.19
13.5
77.2
63. 1+
7l+. 75
78.1+
62.5
66.86
7.18
5.91+
63.09
18.21+
17.7
Total
Sulfur
1.30
1.50
3.28
6.07
l+.QO
3.*
•5.1*
36.1
8.73
11.1
1+1.5
33.17
1-60
1.1+1+
37.97
3.10
3.30
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
C-222.
TABLE C-22
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-6-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. k, Run No. 1
Run No. 1
Operating Conditions:'
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
s
1 in.
0.7
BCR Sample No.
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids
2012
l.OP
34.2
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
ftQ.U
4.9
94.3
4.1
1.6
5.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
94.8
5.2
100.0
71.8
28.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
4.32
44. if
6.40
6.52
58.2
21.09
7.24
6.85
Total Sulfur
0.96
10.0
1.43
1.33
16.8
5.69
1.67
1.57
-------
C-223.
TABLE C-23
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPOKT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
BCR Sample No. 8012
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
11-6-6
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
83.5
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
17.7
7.18
Total Sulfur
3.30
1.60
Weight % Reduction
Ash
59.^
Total
Sulfur
51.5
Compound Water Cyclone Test Mo. k, Run No. 1 Run Date 12-10-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone; Concentrating Table Zones A, B. and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC *
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
9M
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7.2^
6.UO
Total Sulfur
1.67
1.^3
Weight % Reduction
Ash
11.6
Total
Sulfur
1U.U
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
78.7
fi.Uo
i.ki
63. ft
56.7
-------
C-22U.
TABLE C-2k
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification UPPER FRKEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BCR Sample No 2012
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
11-6-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product,
Weight %
100.0
83.5
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
17.7
7.18
Total Sulfur
3-30
1.60
Weight % Reduction
Ash
59.^
Total
Sulfur
51.5
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. k, Run No. 2 Run Date.
12-20-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
83.7
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
6.7k
5.68
Total Sulfur
1.U6
1.23
Weight % Reduction
Ash
15.7
Total
Sulfur
15.7
Two -Stage
Clean Coal
Product
69.9
5.68
1.23
67.9
62.7
-------
C-225.
TABLE C-25
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A. B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-6-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 4, Run No. 2
Run No. 2
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph 1.1
1 in.
8 psi
BCR Sample No. 2012
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids
1.02
55.2
1.37
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
80.7
3.0
83.7
14.3
2.0
16.3
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
Q6.it
3.6
100.0
87.8
12.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
4.36
to. 8
5.68
6.18
55.6
12.21
6.74
8.17
Total Sulfur
O.Q2
Q.50
1.23
1.20
13.0
2.64
1.46
1.76
-------
C-226.
TABLE C-26
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification HO. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0. Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 2013
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
33.2
43.8
11.3
2.0
13.3
0.5
8.1
0.8
9.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
90.3
88.8
1.0
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
85.3
14.7
100.0
5'5
86.4
8.1
100.0
18.9
81.1
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.28
1.23
1.74
1.33
1.68
0.53
0.90
0.46
0.84
1.06
0.41
0.53
1.31
1.31
0.45
1.27
3.15
Ash
8.00
7.94
10.6
ltf.5
15.44
19.2
68.2
59 A
64.79
70.2
62.0
63.55
9.06
8.37
59.92
14.47
15.2
Total
Sulfur
2.84
3.00
3.49
6.58
3.94
4.92
6.52
38.2
9.00
17.2
40.7
36.26
3.08
3.01
38.70
3.7^
3.98
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
C-227.
TABLE C-27
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-27-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 7, Run No. 1
Run No. 1
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type
Vortex Finder Clearance i jn.
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
S
BCR Sample No. _2013_
.02
_5_Dsi
0.7
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids 1.38
Weight Percent, Solids 8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
92.6
U.I
96.7
2.9
O.U
3.3
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
95.8
U.2
100.0
86.9
13.1
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.36
1*2.5
7.88
8.5^
*n.i
13.07
8.05
8.60
Total Sulfur
2.3^
lU.2
2.6k
2.83
15.3
k.k6
2.89
3.02
-------
C-228.
TABLE C-28
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY. OHIO
BCR Sample No..
P01?
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
11-27-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to "3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
90.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
15.2
9.06
Total Sulfur
3-98
3.08
Weight io Reduction
Ash
UO.U
Total
Sulfur
22.6
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 7, Run No. 1 Run Date.
12-30-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
96.7
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
8.05
7.88
Total Sulfur
2.89
2.8U
Weight % Reduction
Ash
2.1
Total
Sulfur
1.7
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
87.3
7.88
2.81*
U8.2
28.6
-------
C-229.
TABLE C-29
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-27-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 7, Run No. 2
Run No. 2
Operating Conditions;
Cone Type M
Vortex Finder Clearance
Inlet Pressure
Dry Feed, tph
1 in.
8 us!
BCR Sample No.
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Specific Gravity, Solids
Weight Percent, Solids
2013
l.Qg
55.2
1.39
8.0
Cyclone Products
Overflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Compos ite
Underflow
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Cyclone Products
Analysis of
Feed to Cyclone
Product ,
Weight
Percent
8k. k
2.9
87.3
11.7
1.0
12.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
96.7
3.3
100.0
92.0
8.0
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
5.95
39.2
7.05
8.6k
k2.2
11.32
7.59
8.91
Total Sulfur
2.26
12.6
2.60
2.90
13.1
3.72
2.7k
3.00
-------
C-230.
TABLE C-30
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Compound Water Cyclone Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY. OHIO
BCR Sample Mb. PD13
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
11-87-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
90.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
15.2
9.06
Total Sulfur
3-98
3.08
Weight $ Reduction
Ash
ko.k
Total
Sulfur
22.6
Compound Water Cyclone Test No. 7. Run No. 2 Run Date 12-30-68
Feed to Compound Water Cyclone: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and n n-mghpfi
to 30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to CWC *
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
87.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7-59
7.05
Total Sulfur
2.71*
2.60
Weight % Reduction
Ash
7.1
Total
Sulfur
5.1
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
78.8
7.05
2.60
53.6
3U.7
-------
D-231.
TABLE D-l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Spiral Concentrator Tests
Single-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM. HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0. Test Mo. 1. Run No. 1
BCR Sample No. 1950
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos.
Inlet Pressure, psT~
Dry Feed, tph i.i~
Middling Split, mesh IQQ
9-2. 12-2. 15-2
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
2176
2k.6
1.40
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product ,
Weight
Percent
69.3
3.8
73.1
13.9
0.9
lit. 8
6.0
0.9
6.9
2.9
2.3
5.2
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
9k. 8
5.2
100.0
93.7
6.3
100.0
87.0
13.0
100.0
55.8
Wf.2
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.30
39.30
8.02
6.13
39. ^0
8.23
6.76
53.20
12.80
7.32
65.80
33.17
9.69
11.20
Total Sulfur
1.1U
9.46
1.57
1.25
6.70
1.59
1.00
1^.20
2.72
1.32
15. UO
7.5^
1.96
2.5^
Run Date:
11-25-68
-------
D-232.
TABLE D-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
coal identification TfWRR KiTTAwwTwr. SEAM, INDIANA COUMTY,. PEMMSYLVAHIA
Rav Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 0031
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
59.6
18.2
3.5
2.5
6.0
0.3
10.9
3.3
li*.5
0.3
1.1|
1.7
83.8
81.6
i*.7
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
58.7
tl. 3
100.0
1.8
75.3
22.9
100.0
16.1;
83.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Moisture
0.60
0.57
0.1*7
0.38
0.1*3
0.1*8
0.52
0.32
0.1*7
0.70
0.2l*
0.32
0.58
0.59
0.30
0.56
2.77
Ash
5.86
6.52
12.1
1*0.8
23.95
13.7
69.6
61.8
66.81
72.6
62.8
65.1*1
7.31
6.31
62.10
16.90
12.1*
Total
Sulfur
1.61*
1.82
2.80
9.11*
5.1*2
3.06
8.23
39.6
15.32
12.8
1*2.6
37.71
1.95
1.71*
1*0.1*9
i*.50
3.66
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
D-233.
TABLE D-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Humphreys Spiral Concentrator Tests
Coal Identification LOWER KITTANNIMG SEAM, INDIANA COUMYf PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A. B. and C. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-11-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 3, Run No. 1
BCR Sample No. 2031
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos. 6-3f 9-2f 12-2r 15-1
Inlet Pressure, psi IQ
Dry Feed, tph
Middling Split, mesh
1.6
100
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
21*. 6
1.36
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product ,
Weight
Percent
7U.O
2.1*
76.lt
10.8
0.5
11.3
5.3
0.1*
5.7
1*.7
1.9
6.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
96.9
3.1
100.0
95.9
l*.l
100.0
93.1
6.9
100.0
71.1
28.9
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
U.52
1*0.9
5.65
U.76
1*2.0
6.29
1|.22
1*8.3
7.26
5.72
57.0
20.51*
6.80
6.66
Total Sulfur
1.01
8.52
1.21*
1.06
6.1*5
1.28
0.85
12.8
1.67
1.17
17.1
5.77
1.57
1.71
Run Date:
-------
TABLE D-k
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Spiral Concentrator Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification LOWER KETTANNING SEAM. INDIANA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
BCR Sample No. 2031
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date 10-11-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product,
Weight $
100.0
83.8
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
12.4
7.31
Total Sulfur
3.66
1-95
Weight"^ Reduction
Ash
14-1.0
Total
Sulfur
U6.7
Spiral Concentrator Test No. 3, Run No. 1 Run Date 12T23T68
Feed to Spiral Concentrator: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to SC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
93 A
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
6.80
5.83
Total Sulfur
1.57
1.27
Weight % Reduction
Ash
11*. 3
Total
Sulfur
19.1
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
78.3
5-83
1.27
53-0
65.3
-------
D-235.
TABLE D-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No.
2026
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
1+0.6
U2.5
9.7
1.3
11.0
0.6
3.7
1.2
5.5
o.ok
0.36
0.1+
oU.i
93.1+
1.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
88.5
11.5
100.0
11.7
66.6
21.7
100.0
Q.6
00.1+
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
2.58
2.61+
0.95
0.7Q
0.93
0.83
1.38
0.63
1.15
o.q6
0.17
0.25
2.1+1
2.1+3
0.52
2.3!+
3.20
Ash
U.53
1+.55
8.20
3Q.6
11.81
16.2
53.0
60.0
50.21
57.2
63.0
62.1+14
5.3C
!+.9S
60.75
8.05
7.9"
Total
Sulfur
1.68
1.61+
2.58
13.6
3.85
3.88
13.1+
1+1.2
18.32
25.0
U+.8
1+2. 00
1.02
1.77
1+2.10
2.8
2.90
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
D-236.
TABLE D-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Spiral Concentrator Tests
Coal Identification NQ. 6 SEAM. COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Zones A. B. and C. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test Ho. 4. Run Ifo. 1 BCR Sample No. 2026
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos. 6-3. 9-2. 12-2. 15-1
Inlet Pressure, psi 10
Dry Feed, tph
1.6
Middling Split, mesh IQQ
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
2U.6
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product,
Weight
Percent
75.4
2.2
77.6
9.1
0.2
9.3
7.5
0.5
8.0
4.0
1.1
5.1
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
97.2
2.8
100.0
97.9
2.1
100.0
Q4.3
5.7
100.0
77.5
22.5
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
3.82
4o.4
4.84
It. 22
36.9
if. 91
3.18
44.0
5.51
It. 90
53.9
15.93
5.1*7
5.14
Total Sulfur
1.03
16.7
1.47
1.18
7.67
1.32
0.96
20.0
2.05
1.32
23.4
6.29
1.75
1.66
-------
TABLE D-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
D-237.
Concentrating Table and Spiral Concentrator Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification MO. 6 SEAM. COLUMBIAMA COUUTE, OHIO
BCR Sample Mo. 2026
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
10-18-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product,
Weight %
100.0
9U.1
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7.93
5.39
Total Sulfur
2.90
1.92
Weight % Reduction
Ash
32.0
Total
Sulfur
33.8
Spiral Concentrator Test Mo. b, Run No. 1 Run Date 12-23-68
Feed to Spiral Concentrator: Concentrating Table Zones A. B. and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to SC *
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
9U.9
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
5.V7
U.90
Total Sulfur
1.75
1.50
Weight % Reduction
Ash
10.U
Total
Sulfur
1U.3
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
89.3
U.90
1.50
38.2
48.3
-------
D-238.
TABLE D-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 2012
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
55.5
22.2
3.3
2.5
5.8
0.2
13.3
1.7
15.2
0.4
0.9
1.3
83.5
81.2
2.6
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
56.1
43.9
100.0
1.5
87.7
10.8
100.0
27.4
72.6
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
0.72
0.64
0.47
0.60
0.53
0.54
0.86
0.6l
0.83
0.70
0.34
0.44
0.69
0.69
0.52
0.70
1.78
Ash
5.44
6.08
13.0
47.6
28. 19
13.5
77.2
63.4
74.75
78.4
62.5
66.86
7.18
5.94
63.09
18.24
17-7
Total
Sulfur
1.30
1.50
3-28
6.97
4.QO
3.94
5.44
36.1
8.73
11.1
41.5
33.17
1.60
1.44
37.97
3.10
3-30
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
D-239.
TABLE D-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Spiral Concentrator Tests
Coal Identification
SEAM WESTMORELAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
Zones A. B. and C. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-6-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 2. Run Ho. 1
BCR Sample No. 2012
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos. 6-4. 9-3. 12-2.
Inlet Pressure, psi IQ
Dry Feed, tph 1.6~
Middling Split, mesh ioo
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
31.8
24.6
1.36
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product ,
Weight
Percent
71.8
3.1
74.9
9.4
0.6
10.0
7.8
0.6
8.4
4.9
1.8
6.7
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
95.9
4.1
100.0
94.2
5.8
100.0
93.0
7.0
100.0
73.3
26.7
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
4.84
1*0.0
6.28
5.80
40.0
7.78
4.05
37.3
6.38
6.26
53.6
18.90
7.28
6.22
Total Sulfur
1.18
8.68
1.49
1.22
5.02
1.44
1.09
9.74
1.70
1.31
9.53
3.50
1.64
1.42
Run Date:
-------
TABLE D-10
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Spiral Concentrator Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND CQinCTY, PEHWSYLVANIA
BCR Sample No. 2012
Concentrating Table Test
Run Date
11-6-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Ray Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
83.5
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
17-7
7.18
Total Sulfur
3.™
1.60
Weight % Reduction
Ash
59.1+
Total
Sulfur
51.5
Spiral Concentrator Test No. 2. Run No. 1
Run Date 12-23-68
Feed to Spiral Concentrator: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to SC*
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
93.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
7.28
6.1*5
Total Sulfur
1.6U
1.50
Weight % Reduction
Ash
ll.U
Total
Sulfur
8.5
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
77.9
6.1*5
1.50
6^.6
5U.5
-------
TABLE D-ll
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0, Rough Cleaning
BCR Sample No. 2013
Table Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.50
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1.60
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Zone E
Float at 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Product
Weight
Percent
33-2
U3. 8
11.3
2.0
13.3
0.5
8.1
0.8
Q.h
0.1
0.2
0.3
90.3
88.8
1.0
100.0
Float and Sink
Weight Percent
85.3
Ik. 7
100.0
5.5
86. U
8.1
100.0
18.9
8l.l
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Moisture
1.28
1.23
1.7^
1.33
1.68
0.53
O.QO
O.U6
O.&k
1.06
O.Ul
0.53
1.31
1.31
O.U5
1.27
3-15
Ash
8.00
7.9^
10.6
U3.5
15. kk
19.2
68.2
5Q.U
6U.7Q
70.2
62.0
63.55
9.06
8.37
59.92
1^.1*7
15-2
Total
Sulfur
2.8U
3-00
3. 1*9
6.58
3.<*
U.92
6.52
38.2
q.oo
17.2
U0.7
36.26
3-08
3.01
38.70
3.7U
3.98
Ultimate
Carbon
-------
TABLE D-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Process and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Spiral Concentrator Tests
Coal Identification HQ. 8 SEAM. JEFFERSON COUNTY. OHIO
Zones A. B. and C. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-27-68) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Test No. 5, Run No. 1 BCR Sample No.__2Q13_
Operating Conditions;
Splitter Nos. 6-3. 9-2. 12-2.
Inlet Pressure, psi 10
Dry Feed, tph
Middling Split, mesh
1.6
100
Specific Gravity, Pulp
Flowrate of Pulp, usgpm
Weight Percent, Solids
Specific Gravity, Solids
1.07
31.8
2k. 6
1.38
Concentrator Products
Clean Coal
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Oversize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Middling Undersize
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Refuse
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
Composite of
Concentrator Products
Analysis of Feed
to Concentrator
Product,
Weight
Percent
78. 4
3.3
81.7
7.3
0.2
7.5
6.7
0.5
7.2
3.1
0.5
3.6
100.0
Float and Sink,
Weight Percent
95.9
4.1
100.0
97.1;
2.6
100.0
^a.i
6.9
100.0
86.1
13.9
100.0
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Ash
6.26
42.1
7.73
6.7k
36.6
7.52
6.01
47.4
8.87
7.3^
50.0
13.27
8.00
8.42
Total Sulfur
2.32
15.0
2.84
2.54
7.76
2.68
2.04
18.6
3.18
2.52
24.2
5.53
2.95
3.02
Run Date:
-------
TABLE D-13
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table and Spiral Concentrator Tests
Effects of Two-Stage Cleaning
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO
BCR Sample No.
2013
Concentrating Table Test
Run
Date 11-27-68
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mlne Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Composite of
Zones A, B, C
Product ,
Weight %
100.0
90.3
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
15.2
9.06
Total Sulfur
3.98
3.08
Weight % Reduction
Ash
ko.k
Total
Sulfur
22.6
Spiral Concentrator Test No. 5. Run No. 1
Run Date
12-30-68
Feed to Spiral Concentrator: Concentrating Table Zones A, B, and C Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Analysis of
Feed to SC *
Clean Coal
Product
Product
Weight %
100.0
96.k
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight %
Ash
8.00
7.80
Total Sulfur
2.95
2.85
Weight % Reduction
Ash
2.5
Total
Sulfur
3.U
Two- Stage
Clean Coal
Product
87.0
7.08
2.85
53- ^
28. k
-------
TABLE E-l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techni
-------
E-2U6.
TABLE E-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Fyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM. BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1733
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
60.8
39.2
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.3
0.1
30 x 50
0.5
15.2
6.3
50 x 100
4.9
56.5
25.1
100 x 200
24.3
22.0
23.4
-200
70.3
6.0
45.1
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight % Reduction
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
65.3
34.7
100.0
Ash
6.90
70.7
29.04
Total
Sulfur
2.78
5.68
3.79
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.71
5.18
2.26
Pyritic
Sulfur
75.0
Total
Sulfur
39.3
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
68.4
31.6
100.0
Ash
7.22
71.4
27.50
Total
Sulfur
3.36
10.5
5.62
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.24
10.2
4.07
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
56.3
Total
Sulfur
26.6
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100$ Weight Basis
Ash
29.04
7.22
22.98
Total
Sulfur
3.79
3.36
3.66
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.26
1.24
1.95
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
31.3
Total
Sulfur
-------
TABLE E-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6-A SEAM, HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Pine Coal Ft act ion
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
63.2
36.8
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.3
0.1
30 x 50
0.8
17.7
7.0
50 x 100
5.0
55.2
23.5
100 x 200
19-3
22. it
20. it
-200
7^.9
it.lt
1*9.0
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
85.7
lit. 3
100.0
Ash
it. 23
W.U
10.55
Total
Sulfur
0.88
8.82
2.02
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
8.37
1.32
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.9
Total
Sulfur
6U.8
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.6o
Sink at 1.60
Composite
8l.it
18.6
100.0
Ash
it. 77
6l.O
15.23
Total
Sulfur
0.88
18.2
it. 10
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.26
18.9
3.73
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
86.0
Total
Sulfur
6it.8
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100& Weight Basis
Ash
10.55
it. 77
8.69
Total
Sulfur
2.02
0.88
1.65
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.32
0.26
0.98
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
^7.3
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-2U8.
TABLE E-U
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification NO. 6 SEAM, COLUMBIAN COUNTY, OHIO
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
65.1
3M
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.2
0.1
30 x 50
0.2
11.0
U.O
50 x 100
M
55.3
22.1
100 x 200
2k.2
27.6
25. U
-200
71.3
5-9
U8.U
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
87.6
12. k
100.0
Ash
3.0U
M4.9
8.23
Total
Sulfur
0.59
10.1
1.77
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.lU
9-73
1.33
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
92.2
Total
Sulfur
75.8
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
83.7
16.3
100.0
Ash
3.98
148.0
11.16
Total
Sulfur
0.76
18.8
3.70
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.30
18.8
3.32
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
83.2
Total
Sulfur
68.9
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction:
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis Weight % Reduction
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100% Weight Basis
Ash
8.23
3.98
6.91
Total
Sulfur
1.77
0.76
1.146
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.33
0.30
1.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
U3.6
Total
Sulfur
-------
TABLE E-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification LOWER KITTATOING AND LOWER FREEPORT SEAM, CAMBRIA CO., PA.
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Sample Ho.
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
6k.k
35.6
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
3.7
1.3
30 x 50
0.3
16.3
6.0
50 x 100
2.7
Mt.5
17.6
100 x 200
17.3
31.8
22.5
-200
79-7
3.7
52.6
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
85.8
1^. 2
100.0
Ash
U.OO
51.U
10.73
Total
Sulfur
0.82
8.96
1.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.20
8.60
1.39
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
89.1
Total
Sulfur
66.1
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
73.8
26.2
100.0
Ash
5.50
66.8
21.56
Total
Sulfur
0.85
8.60
2.88
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.31
8.1*
2.1*
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
83.2
Total
Sulfur
6U.9
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis Weight % Reduction
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100$ Weight Basis
Ash
10.73
5.50
9.21
Total
Sulfur
1.98
0.85
1.65
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.39
0.31
1.08
Pyritic
Sulfur
Ul.3
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-250.
TABLE E-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification UPPER FREEPORT SEAM, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 175Q
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
63.6
36.it
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.2
0.1
30 x 50
0.3
13. U
5.1
50 x 100
k.k
56.5
23. U
100 x 200
25.1
27.8
26.1
-200
70.2
2.1
1*5.3
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.
Composite
60
78.1
21.9
100.0
Ash
U.55
58.2
16.30
Total
Sulfur
0.82
7.3^
2.25
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.32
6.91
1.76
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
90.1
Total
Sulfur
78.1
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60 5^.8
Sink at 1.60 ^5.2
Composite 100.0
Ash
5.60
68.1
33.85
Total
Sulfur
1.10
13.0
6.k8
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.60
13.1
6.25
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
81. k
Total
Sulfur
70.6
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction:
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis Weight % Seduction
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100$ Weight Basis
Ash
16.30
5.60
13.75
Total
Sulfur
2.25
1.10
1.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.76
0.60
1.U8
Pyritic
Sulfur
5^.0
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-251.
TABLE E-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Critic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification UPPER KITTAMING SEAM, SOMERSET COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1732 ._
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
67.8
32.2
100.0
Weight $ In Screen Size
+30
0.0
1.1
O.U
30 x 50
0.3
10.5
3.6
50 x 100
3.7
UU.5
16.8
100 x 200
19.6
37.0
25.2
-200
76. U
6.9
5^.0
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
81*. 2
15.8
100.0
Ash
5.26
k5.k
11.60
Total
Sulfur
0.53
7.02
1.56
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
6.82
1.20
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
93.5
Total
Sulfur
QO.k
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
70.2
29.8
100.0
Ash
7.96
59.8
23.^1
Total
Sulfur
0.5^
13. k
*K37
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
13.0
3.98
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
93.5
Total
Sulfur
80.1
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Weight % Reduction
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100$ Weight Basis
Chemical Analysis,
Ash
11.60
7.96
10.69
Total
Sulfur
1.56
0.5^
1.31
Dry Basis
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.20
0.15
0.9^
Pyritic
Sulfur
59.3
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-252.
TABLE E-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests (ReproduciMlity Test)
Coal Identification UPPER KITTANNIHG SEAM, SOMERSET COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1752
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
68.2
31.8
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.8
0.2
30 x 50
0.4
9.6
3.3
50 x 100
2.4
42.3
15.1
100 x 200
18.6
39.5
25.3
-200
78.6
7.8
56.1
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight % Reduction
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
86.6
13.4
100.0
Ash
5.05
48.2
10.83
Total
Sulfur
0.1*8
6.93
1.34
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.11
6.86
1.01
Pyritic
Sulfur
95.2
Total
Sulfur
82.3
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
68.5
31.5
100.0
Ash
7.69
58.6
23.73
Total
Sulfur
0.52
13.8
4.70
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.15
13.8
4.45
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
93.5
Total
Sulfur
80.8
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis Weight
-------
E-253.
TABLE E-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification FREEPORT SEAM, GRAHT COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1757
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight $,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
60.2
39.8
100.0
Weight ia In Screen Size
+30
0.0
U.7
1.9
30 x 50
0.0
2k.O
9-5
50 x 100
3.7
U8.0
21.2
100 x 200
22.2
19.8
21.3
-200
7^.3
3.5
U6.1
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
66.1
33.9
100.0
Ash
8.85
61.8
26.80
Total
Sulfur
0.96
kM
2.13
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.32
It. 18
1.63
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
85.2
Total
Sulfur
61. a.
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60 U3.U
Sink at 1.60
Composite
56.6
100.0
Ash
12.6
70.6
*5.»*
Total
Sulfur
1.10
U.19
2.85
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.5^
U.13
2.57
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
75.0
Total
Sulfur
56.3
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Weight % Reduction
Fine Bar Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Oonposite, 1CO£ Weight Basis
Chemical Analysis,
Ash
26.80
12.60
23.63
Total
Sulfur
2.13
1.10
1.90
Dry Basis
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.63
0.5^
1.39
Pyritic
Sulfur
35.6
Total
Sulfur
-------
TABLE E-10
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-Majac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification THICK FREEPORT SEAM, ALLEGHENY COUMTY, PEMiSYLVANIA
Raw Bun-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/g Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1770
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
71.5
28.5
100.0
Weight % In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.2
0.1
30 x 50
0.5
12.5
U.O
50 x 100
k.2
59.3
19.9
100 x 200
22.0
2k.6
22.7
-200
73.3
3>
53.3
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
76.7
23.3
100.0
Ash
6.65
62.6
19.69
Total
Sulfur
0.5U
^. 32
1.U2
Pyritic
Sulfur
O.Ik
^. 25
1.10
Weight $ Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.7
Total
Sulfur
7^.0
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.6o
Sink at 1.60
Composite
68.1
31.9
100.0
Ash
8.12
6k.3
26.0k
Total
Sulfur
0.60
7.61+
2.85
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.26
7.37
2.53
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
8U.5
Total
Sulfur
71.2
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100$ Weight Basis
Ash
19.69
8.12
17.23
Total
Sulfur
1.U2
0.60
1.25
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.10
0.26
0.92
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
U5.2
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-255.
TABLE E-ll
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
BCR-MaJac Air Classification Tests
Coal Identification LOWER FREEPORT SEAM, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1771
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight %,
Product
Fine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
63.0
37.0
100.0
Weight $ In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.6
0.2
30 x 50
0.2
20.0
7.5
50 x 100
4.5
54.0
23-3
100 x 200
21.5
21.7
21.8
-200
73-3
2.8
U7.2
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight % Reduction
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
86.2
13.8
100.0
Ash
5.08
45.8
10.70
Total
Sulfur
0.72
8.50
1.79
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.17
8.30
1.29
Pyritic
Sulfur
91.0
Total
Sulfur
71.7
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction:
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
79.9
20.1
100.0
Ash
7.8k
51.4
16.60
Total
Sulfur
0.86
12.6
3.22
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.33
11.8
2.64
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
82.5
Total
Sulfur
66.1
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Weight % Reduction
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100% Weight Basis
Chemical Analysis,
Ash
10.70
7.84
9.78
Total
Sulfur
1.79
0.86
1.49
Dry Basis
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.29
0.33
0.98
Pyritic
Sulfur
48.1
Total
Sulfur
-------
E-256.
TABLE E-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Alpine Zigzag Classifier Tests
Run No. h
Coal Identification NO. 8 SEAM, BELMOMT COUNTY, OHIO
Saw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No. 1733
Size Consist Analysis (BCR-Majac Products):
Weight <$»
Product
Pine Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction
Composite
60.3
39.7
100.0
Weight "to In Screen Size
+30
0.0
0.7
0.3
30 x 50
0.0
18.2
7.2
50 x 100
6.6
58.1
27.0
100 x 200
30.2
16.9
2^.9
-200
63.2
6.1
Uo.6
Analyses of Fine Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight $
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
68.2
31.8
100.0
Ash
6.U6
65.8
25.33
Total
Sulfur
2.91
6.3^
k.OO
Pyritic
Sulfur
0.73
5.32
2.19
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
7U.3
Total
Sulfur
36.5
Analyses of Coarse Coal Fraction;
Float and Sink, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Weight %
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Composite
67.0
33.0
100.0
Ash
7.22
69.5
27.77
Total
Sulfur
3.38
9.71
5.^7
Pyritic
Sulfur
1.18
9.0U
3.77
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
58.5
Total
Sulfur
26.2
Chemical Analysis Composite of Fine Raw Coal Fraction and Coarse Clean Coal Fraction;
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fine Raw Coal Fraction
Coarse Coal Fraction, 1.60 Float
Composite, 100% Weight Basis
Ash
25.33
7.22
20.20
Total
Sulfur
U.OO
3.38
3.82
Pyritic
Sulfur
2.19
1.18
1.90
Weight % Reduction
Pyritic
Sulfur
33.1
Total
Sulfur
-------
F-257.
APPENDIX F
-------
F-258.
F-l
FLOAT-AND-SINK ANALYSIS OF FINE COAL
June 9, 1967
SCOPE:
This method is a heavy-media gravity separation by centrifuge to
determine the weight percent float and weight percent sink of
a sample of fine coal (minus Ik mesh, U.S. Sieve Series).
MODIFIED: September 12, 1967
Included in the standard method is a procedure to deter agglom-
eration of fine coal particles.
APPARATUS:
Balance with sufficient sensitivity to weigh 200 g to the nearest
0.1 g.
Centrifuge (international Centrifuge, Size 2, Model V)
Heavy-media and gravity adjusting solution:
Methanol CH3OH - 0.80
Tetrachloroethylene CaClU - 1.62
Tetrabromoethane CHBrg • CHBrs - 2.95
Wetting agent—Coal Dyne 80 (Preiser Scientific, Inc.)
Hydrometers capable of measuring specific gravities from 1.00
to 3.00.
Fluted filtering funnels and/or fluted filter paper, Eaton-
Dikeman, grade 515, 38.5 cms.
Filtering funnel rack
2000 ml beakers and wash bottle
Small scoop
Stopper for centrifuge tubes
Drying oven 105 C.
PROCEDURE:
1. Record all data on the Data Sheet (sample attached^
2. Adjust heavy-media solution to desired separating gravity.
The standard starting solution is tetrachloroethylene
-------
F-259-
adding methanol (0.80); a heavier media is obtained by
adding tetrabromoethane (2.95). If mixing of solutions
is required, the adjusting solutions should be carefully
added in small increments, stirred well, and checked
with the appropriate hydrometer until the desired sepa-
rating gravity is obtained.
3. Weigh four increments of coal (approximately 15 grams each)
and place in drying oven for 1 hour at 105 C.
k. Fill centrifuge tubes to halfway with gravity media.
5. Pour the dried increments of coal into the centrifuge tubes
(one increment per tube), add 20 drops of Coal Dyne 80
and stir well.
6. Fill centrifuge tubes and adjust weights of opposing centri-
fuge tubes by adding gravity media, keeping the height of
the media in the centrifuge tubes to about 1 inch from the
top.
7. Place centrifuge tubes containing gravity media and coal
sample into appropriate holders (equal opposing weights)
and centrifuge at 1500 rpm for 20 minutes.
8. Weigh filter paper, record weight on data sheet, and place
into filtering funnels.
9. After centrifuging, remove centrifuge tube and sample.
Scoop off enough float fraction to permit insertion
of centrifuge tube stopper. Wash float fraction of
coal into filtering funnel marked float using media
of same gravity.
10. Remove stopper and wash sink fraction of coal into fil-
tering funnel marked sink using media of same gravity.
Care must be taken to wash the float and sink fractions
into the appropriate filtering funnel.
11. After most of the separating media has been filtered into
the beakers, combine separating media solution and save
for future use.
12. Wash the float and sink fractions three times with meth-
anol to remove most of the separating media. This
solution will be discarded.
13. After methanol wash, identify filter papers containing
coal float and sink fractions and place into drying
-------
F-260.
lU. After dry, weigh float and sink fractions; record weight on
Data Sheet and calculate to percentages.
15. Save float and sink fractions in separate, properly identi-
fied jars for chemical analyses.
l6. Clean centrifuge tubes with methanol before running next
-------
F-261.
FLOAT-AMD-SINK ANALYSIS OF FINE COAL
Coal Identification
Gravity Separation @
Weight of Feed Material;
Coal +
Tube Weight
Tube Weight
Coal Weight
Centrifuge Tube 1
Centrifuge Tube 2
Centrifuge Tube 3
Centrifuge Tube U
Weight of Float Fraction;
Coal + Filter Paper
Filter Paper
Float Weight
TOTAL COAL WEIGHT
Weight of Sink Fraction;
Coal + Filter Paper
Filter Paper
Sink Weight
Weight of Float-and-Sink Fractions;
Weight Weight, %
Float
Sink .
TOTAL 100.0$
BCR Form 135
Date:
-------
F-262.
F-2
STAGE GRINDING OF FINE COAL TO A REQUIRED SIZE CONSIST
June 15, 1967
SCOPE:
This method describes the technique of stage grinding a sample of
fine coal (minus Ik mesh, U.S. Sieve Series) to a predetermined
size consist based on fixed carbon and fixed carbon and calo-
rific value. (See Table 1)
TABLE 1. REQUIRED PULVERIZED COAL FINENESS —
PERCENT THROUGH NO. 200 SIEVE
Fuel Classification (Dry Basis)
Fixed Carbon Fixed Carbon Below 69$
97.9 85.9 76.9 Btu Btu Btu
to to to Above From Below
86 77 69 12,900 12,900 11,000
to
11,000
80 75 70 70 65 60
APPARATUS:
Balance with sufficient sensitivity to weigh to nearest 0.1
Holmes Pulverizer (Model 3B) with 60 mesh screen insert
Mortar and pestle
U.S. Sieves: 297-micron (No. 50)
lU9-micron (No. 100)
7^-micron (No. 200)
-------
F-263.
PROCEDURE:
1. Record all data on Data Sheet (sample attached)
2. From the proximate analysis, use Table 1 to determine the
required weight percent of coal which must pass through
the 200 mesh screen.
3. Tare sieve pan and record weight. Pour coal sample into
pan and weigh. The weight of sieve pan plus coal minus
the weight of sieve pan is the coal sample weight. From
the weight of the coal sample determine the weight of
coal needed to obtain the required weight percent of coal
which must pass the 200 mesh screen.
h. Tare sieves and record weights.
5. Pour coal sample from sieve pan into Holmes pulverizer to
reduce sample to minus 60 mesh.
6. Assemble bank of sieves, using tared sieves in descending
order of mesh size openings (that is, No. 50, No. 100,
No. 200) and placing tared sieve pan on bottom of bank.
7. Pour the minus 60 mesh pulverizer product into the bank of
sieves, attach sieve cover, and sieve using the hand-
sieving method.
8. After one minute of hand-sieving, brush bottom of 200 mesh
sieve into sieve pan and weigh.
9. Reassemble and hand-sieve for one minute, brush bottom of
200 mesh sieve into sieve pan and weigh. Repeat the pro-
cedure until the weight of coal passing through the 200
mesh sieve does not exceed 0.1 g.
10. If the weight of the minus 200 mesh coal exceeds the re-
quired weight, the stage grinding procedure must be
repeated on the representative reserve cut of the coal
sample using the mortar and pestle to accomplish pul-
verization. If more minus 200 mesh coal is needed to
obtain the required weight, this can be accomplished by
mortar and pestle using the coal retained on the 50 mesh
sieve and, if necessary, the coal retained on the 100
mesh sieve. Steps 8 and 9 are repeated until the re-
quired minus 200 mesh coal weight is obtained to within
* 1.0 percent.
11. Weigh tared sieves, record weights to determine weights
-------
F-264.
STAGE GRINDING OF FINE COAL TO A REQUIRED SIZE CONSIST
Coal Identification
Fixed Carbon Btu
Required Percent Through No. 200 Sieve
Sieve Pan +
Coal Sample Weight
Sieve Pan Weight
Coal Sample Weight X $ Required =
Required Weight of
Minus 200 Mesh Coal
Sieve Coal + Weight of Weight % of
No. Tare Weight Tare Weight Coal Retained Coal Retained
50 - =
100 - =
200 - =
PAN -
TOTAL WEIGHT OF COAL = 100.(
Date:
Analyst:
-------
G-26"5.
APPENDIX G
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF COAL AND COAL REFUSE MATERIALS
Most coal laboratories probably rely on the methods for deter-
mining forms of sulfur in coal which are contained in ASTM Standards,
Part 19j entitled "Gaseous Fuel, Coal, and Coke."
Briefly, the determination of sulfur forms according to ASTM pro-
cedures is as follows: Total sulfur is determined by fluxing a -60M
coal sample with Eschka's mixture at 800 C to convert all sulfur to
sulfate. The sulfur is precipitated as barium sulfate and is ignited
at 925 C. Total sulfur concentration is obtained by applying the
appropriate gravimetric factor.
Sulfate sulfur and non-pyritic iron are determined by extraction
of the coal sample with hot hydrochloric acid. Iron is removed from
the extract by oxidation and then precipitation with ammonium hydrox-
ide. The concentration of non-pyritic iron is determined by dichromate
titration. The sulfur is precipitated as barium sulfate, and is then
ignited and weighed.
Pyritic sulfur is determined by extraction of the coal sample with
nitric acid followed by titrimetric determination of total iron in the
extract. Non-pyritic iron is subtracted from total iron, and the resul-
tant value is multiplied by the appropriate factor to obtain pyritic
sulfur.
Organic sulfur is determined by subtracting the sum of sulfate
sulfur and pyritic sulfur from total sulfur.
The BCR method for determining sulfate sulfur is essentially the
same as that prescribed by ASTM. We have found it necessary, however,
to depart from the normal ASTM methods for determination of total sul-
fur and pyritic sulfur.
Our method for total sulfur is the same as the ASTM method to the
point of filtering the barium sulfate precipitate. The samples which
we analyze, however, may contain total sulfur ranging from less than 1
percent to approximately UO or 50 percent by weight. Obviously the
latter case requires handling abnormally large quantities of barium
sulfate precipitate. The resultant analytical data may therefore be
imprecise and inaccurate because handling procedures are subject to
variance in operator technique. There also exists the possibility
of reaction between filter paper and barium sulfate precipitate dur-
ing final ignition.
In order to help solve the above problems we have developed a
-------
G-266.
Among the advantages of this device are significant reduction in fil-
tration time; more rapid ignition of precipitate, as well as ignition
at lower temperature (750 C). Moreover, we can achieve excellent pre-
cision with this device because it is easier for any operator to wash
the precipitate thoroughly.
The ASTM procedure for determining pyritic sulfur as described
previously involves nitric acid extraction of the coal sample. We
feel that this procedure is not satisfactory because a portion of the
pyrites in some bituminous coals will not be extracted. This is due
mainly to inadequate penetration of the coal material by the nitric
acid and to varying modes of occurrence of pyrite (for example, micro
pyrites, globules, layers, etc.). Reduction of the sample to a finer
size consist helps alleviate these problems but it is not the absolute
answer.
In order to minimize this problem, we extract total iron from the
sample by refluxing the ash from proximate analysis with hydrochloric
acid. The iron concentration is then determined by dichromate titra-
tion. We feel that this procedure yields results for total iron which
are more accurate than those obtained by the nitric acid extraction of
coal.
Non-pyritic iron values may be in error if this form of iron is
not completely extracted from the coal by hot hydrochloric acid. This
could occur, for example, if the size consist of the sample is too
coarse or if the sample contains compounds such as iron silicates.
Pyritic sulfur values based on the determination of pyritic iron
may be in error due to replacement of pyrites by iron oxides, thus in-
creasing the iron/sulfur ratio in the sample. Another possibility is
that the iron/sulfur ratio in pyrite may not always be 1:2.
A possible solution to these problems would be to determine or-
ganic sulfur by Eschka fusion of the residue from a nitric acid extract
of coal, and then obtain pyritic sulfur by difference. Problems with
this procedure may arise because organic sulfur can be attacked by ni-
tric acid. On the other hand, portions of the pyritic sulfur might not
be extracted.
We have also experienced on occasion some difficulty determining
iron by dichromate titration. Interferences in the oxidation-reduction
process are probably due to species other than iron consuming the oxi-
dizing agent; however, we have not been able to elucidate much regarding
this possibility.
One of the more expedient solutions to the interference problem is
to oxidize and precipitate the iron as ferric hydroxide prior to the di-
chromate titration. Another, and perhaps better, approach would be to
determine iron by more selective methods such as emission spectroscopy
-------
G-267.
During the course of experimental work on the project, it was
deemed necessary to determine the carbon content of high sulfur refuse
materials as well as to quantitatively determine the sulfur forms. The
primary purpose was to determine purity of refuse samples with respect
to percentage pyrite and percentage carbon.
The first method which was developed involved combustion of the
sample in a stream of oxygen, conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur
trioxide and finally to sulfuric acid. Carbon dioxide was absorbed in
a suitable reagent and the percentage carbon obtained by applying a
gravimetric factor.
Several problems were encountered in the first method. The pro-
cedure was very time consuming and very complicated. It was also
difficult to remove all the sulfuric acid aerosol created by the high
sulfur content of the samples. The use of chromic acid and chromic-
sulfuric acid mixtures also caused the procedure to be inherently
dangerous to personnel.
A second method, being developed at the present time, involves
combustion of the sample in a stream of oxygen; collection of all
product gases, with subsequent analysis for all carbon-containing
compounds by gas chromatographic methods.
Primary advantages of the second method over the first are that
it is faster and more accurate; the carbon is all converted to carbon
dioxide (at least this has been our experience so far), and the sulfuric
acid aerosol problem has been eliminated. The procedure is therefore
less involved, and elimination of reagents such as chromic and sulfuric
acids renders the method less dangerous to personnel.
We believe it is appropriate at this point to suggest some changes
in methods for determining sulfur forms in coal and coal refuse mate-
rials .
One analytical scheme which merits further testing would involve
initially determining sulfur forms and percent carbon in the original
coal sample. These values can be determined quite accurately. Refuse
material (from the original coal) would be analyzed for total sulfur,
sulfate sulfur, and carbon. Concentration of organic sulfur in the
refuse fraction would then be calculated by the following formula:
Percent Percent
Organic Sulfur = Organic Sulfur x Percent Carbon (fraction)
(fraction) (original sample) Percent Carbon (original
-------
G-268.
This formula implicity assumes that the proportion, organic sulfur to
carbon in the refuse material, is the same as that in the original
coal.
We feel that these procedures would give results which are more
accurate than procedures now utilized, especially dealing primarily
with coal refuse material containing high percentage sulfur.
Many problems which arise during analysis of coal refuse materials
may be traced to improper procedures for analytical sample preparation
and handling rather than to analytical methods. As an illustration,
samples which are either dry or which contain large amounts of moisture
should be equilibrated to laboratory conditions in order to minimize
gain or loss of moisture over time.
The high specific gravity of refuse samples, particularly the
pyrite portion, may also cause sampling problems in the laboratory.
A refuse sample may be stratified very easily by simply tapping the
sample container on a bench top; therefore, extra care must be taken
during mixing and when removing the individual portion for analysis.
Most refuse samples should also be pulverized to a finer topsize
(-100M) than normal analytical coal samples (-60M) in order to improve
precision and accuracy of analytical results. It is also advisable,
when working with small quantities of sample, to hand grind rather than
-------
STANDARD TITLE PAGE
FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS
T. Report No.
APTD-0579
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
An Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques for
Removing Pyritic Sulfur From Fine Coal
6. Performing Organization Code
'. Author! s)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
PH 86-67-139
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Air Pollution Control Administration Technical Center
411 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
is. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts xhe objective was to extend washability data to finer sizes of coal, and to eval
uate coal cleaning methods and techniques for removing pyritic sulfur from the fine-sized
coal. Two sizes were of interest in the washability studies. The 30 mesh x 0 size was the
lower limit in sizing that would contain a size range of pyrite typical of a utility pul-
verizer's recycle load. It is this recycle material that can possibly be removed from the
utility pulverizer, wet-cleaned to remove the pyrite, and the clean dewatered coal rein-
jected into the feed to the pulverizer without thermal drying. The second size range of
interest was each coal's "as fired," or p.c. grind. It is at this stage of pulverization
that maximum pyrite liberation occurs, insofar as the coal's present utilization is con-
cerned. The evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques was limited to 30 mesh x
0, grind. The seventy coals tested came from three geographical areas: Western Pennsyl-
vania, Eastern Ohio, and Illinois. Maximum pyritic sulfur reduction obtained at the 30
mesh x 0 size was 93.7 percent with an Ohio No. 6 coal; the minimum pyritic sulfur reduc-
tion obtained was 51.2 percent with an Illinois No. 6 coal. At the p.c. grind, 95.0 per-
cent of the pyritic sulfur was removable from a Pennsylvania Lower Freeport coal while
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors
(continued on back of page)
Concentrating
Hydrocyclones
Spirals (concentrators)
Concentrators
Classifiers
Evaluation
Air pollution
Coal preparation
Cleaning
Pyrite
Washing
Fines
Fineness
Pulverized fuels
Coal
Desulfurization
176. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Concentrating tables
Concentrating spirals
Compound**w*ter cyclones
Air classification
I7e. C05ATI FteM/Group 13/02, 21/04, 10/02
18. Distribution Statement
19.Security Class(This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
286
XO.Security Class. (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. Price
-------
16. Abstracts (Continued)
the minimum percentage of pyritic sulfur removal was 54.5 percent with a Pennsylvania
Middle Kittanning coal which had a very low R.O.M. pyritic sulfur content. Total sulfur
reductions covered a much wider range since the percentage of organic sulfur, which was
not removable, quite significantly affected the percent reduction. If pyrite removal is
to stand on its own merit as a method of reducing .sulfur dioxide emissions, a high -per-
centage of total sulfur reduction must be obtained at the selected size for processing.
If limestone or dolomite injection is to be considered as a supplement to the removal
of pyrite from the coal, the percentage of pyritic sulfur reduction must be fairly high
and the effect of a high organic sulfur content on poor total sulfur reduction becomes
less significant. The results of the coal cleaning tests with the concentrating table
were, in general, excellent. The results obtained with the compound water cyclone and
concentrating spiral were not encouraging when judged purely on the separations obtained.
A wide range in sulfur reduction was obtained in the Majac air classification tests.
This was expected, since the coals were not selected on their predicted ease of separa-
tion. Total sulfur reductions of 40 percent could be significant if the cost of the pro-
------- |