Coal - Hypothesis for Different Floatabilities of Coals, Carbons, and Hydrocarbon Minerals

THE fact that coals of different ranks and even of the same rank differ greatly in their amenability to iroth flotation is well known. In recognition of the need for an explanation of this phenomenon, two hypotheses have been suggested. Wilkinsl reported that the floatability of coals increased with an increase of the carbon content or rank. This postulate is handicapped by the fact that bituminous coals that possess moderate carbon contents are actually more floatable than anthracite coals that have high carbon contents, as shown in columns 6 and 9 of Table I. Taggart and his associates' implied that the difference of floatability between bituminous and anthracite coal was caused by the variation of carbon-hydrogen ratio. This is not applicable to the relative floatability of other coals and carbons. For example, column 11 of Table I shows that the carbon-hydrogen ratios of low-floating lignitic coal and non-floating animal charcoal are not only smaller than the moderate-floating anthracite coal, but are also similar to the high-floating bituminous coal. Furthermore, according to this hypothesis, high temperature coke-A (464), Ceylon graphite (1238), and lamp-black (357), all possessing extremely high carbon-hydrogen ratios, should be less floatable than other substances having much lower carbon-hydrogen ratios such as high volatile-B bituminous coal (11.9 to 22), anthracite coal (35.7 to 60.5), lignitic coal (15.6 to 33.6), and charcoal (13 to 26.2). However the former group is actually more floatable than the latter group. In this paper, a surface components hypothesis is Proposed to explain the different floatabilities of coals, carbons, and hydrocarbon minerals. The validity of the hypothesis is experimentally supported by the actual floatability, natural floatability, wettability, and adsorbability for neutral oils of coals, carbons, and hydrocarbon minerals tested. The combustible recovery of the flotation results, as used in this paper. was calculated from Eq. 1: P (100-Ep) 100 RWCP Rc= [1] F (100-E,) C, where R, is the percent combustible recovery; F and P are, respectively, the weight of feed and the weight of concentrate or product; E, and Ep are, respectively, the total percent of ash plus moisture in feed and in concentrate; Ru. is the percent weight recovery: and C, and C, are, respectively, the percent of combustible in feed and in concentrate. Except for ash and moisture content, all chemical components of a coal are assumed combustible. The experimental work included studies on flotation, ultimate and proximate analyses, contact angle tests, extractions of bitumen-A with benzene, adsorptions for liquid hydrocarbons, and wetting tests. Most of the flotation experiments were performed in a laboratory Fagergren machine; others were tested in a small Denver machine. The solid feed for the former was 300 g and for the latter was 30 g. The solid materials used for flotation were crushed to —48 mesh. After the mineral pulp in the flotation cell was agitated for 6 min and the pH was adjusted to 7.5 & 0.2 with sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid, a petroleum light oil having a viscosity of 5.73 centipoises at 77 °F was added and conditioned for 2 min. Finally, pine oil was introduced and the froth was collected for exactly 3 min. The weight ratio of petroleum light oil to pine oil was kept constant at 1.5 to 1. Tap water was used for all flotation tests. Contact angles were measured with a captive bubble machine. For each coal sample, three specimens were mounted in transoptic mounts and polished with levigated alumina, first on a sheet glass, then on a cloth-covered metal polishing wheel. The polished specimen was first washed with distilled water and wiped thoroughly on a cleaned linen pad, then transferred into the pyrex cell of the captive bubble machine and conditioned for 6 min., and finally measured for contact angles at three or more points. Except where otherwise stated, the induction time for each measurement was 1 min. The contact angle representing each material was obtained by averaging the measurements of three specimens. The linen pad was first washed with warm distilled water, then boiled 30 min in a 2N sodium hydroxide solution, and finally washed with distilled water until no trace of sodium hydroxide could be detected in the decanted solution. The cleaned linen pad was stored under distilled water. Immediately before using, the pad was rewashed and transferred into a clean pyrex petri dish partly filled with distilled water. The glassware and rubber gloves used were cleaned by soaking in sulphuric acid-potassium dichromate cleaning solution, followed by rinsing with distilled water. The polished specimens were handled only by glass forceps. The ultimate and proximate analyses were made in accordance with the ASTM standard procedures for coal and coke. The extractable bitumen-A was determined by weighing 1 g of —100 mesh sample and placing it in a desiccated and weighed ASTM aluminum-extraction thimble. The thimble was placed in condenser hooks and inserted into an extraction flask containing 100 cu cm of benzene. The flask was heated and the benzene vapor was condensed by water coils. At the end of 24 hr of percolation, the thimble was removed, desiccated, and weighed. Loss in weight of sample was taken as bitumen-A and calculated to dry and ash-free basis.