Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In order to investigate the influence of particle size on the flotation behavior of coal slime, industrial analysis, elementary analysis, and particle size composition analysis were carried out on coal slime. The coal slime is divided into three sizes: −0.5 + 0.25, −0.25 + 0.074, and −0.074 mm, and full −0.5 mm particle sizes. Through contact angle measurement, wetting heat measurement, and step-by-step release test to investigate the hydrophobicity of each particle size; in addition, the flotation kinetics test of different particle sizes coal slime was also carried out. The results show that the particle size has a significant effect on the flotation behavior of fine coal slime. The medium particle size −0.25 + 0.074 mm has the best hydrophobicity, followed by −0.5 + 0.25 mm, again −0.5 mm, and finally −0.074 mm particle sizes. Use Origin software to fit six kinetic models to the test data of coal slime flotation kinetics, and analyze the maximum combustible recovery $r_{\infty}$ , flotation rate constant (k), and correlation coefficient ( $R^{2}$ ) of each particle size, The results show that the first-order model with rectangular distribution of floatabilities can better describe the flotation of coal slime of each particle size.

Keywords

Coal slime particle size contact angle wetting heat flotation kinetics

Introduction

Coal is the main energy source for power generation and coking in China (Kato and Matsueda, 2018), and it is also an important resource to promote the growth of the national economy (Chang et al., 2017). With the gradual depletion of high-quality coal resources, the demand for the washing of high-ash refractory coal is increasing (Ni et al., 2018). Separating combustibles from high-ash coal slime plays an important role in improving the calorific value and utilization efficiency of pulverized coal (Xia et al., 2019). The mineral impurities in coal are the main factor causing environmental pollution and affect the combustion efficiency of coal (Xing et al., 2017). Coal separation is an effective method to improve coal quality, remove gangue minerals and organic sulfur, and is also an important factor in reducing environmental pollution and transportation costs (Shi et al., 2018; Xia, 2018). Flotation is a physicochemical separation technology that is widely used in mineral and coal fine particles. It is an effective method for separation using the difference in surface hydrophobicity and floatability between coal and gangue particles (Ma et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018). The step-by-step release test can understand the floatability of coal slime of different particle sizes and determine its hydrophobicity (Chen et al., 2019). The hydrophobicity of coal slime is the main factor affecting the flotation behavior and recovery of coal slime (Niu et al., 2018).

In the process of coal slime flotation, due to mechanical coating and water entrainment, clay minerals have an adverse effect on the flotation of fine coal slime, resulting in low flotation recovery and poor flotation selectivity (Xing et al., 2017). The flotation efficiency is related to the collision, attachment, and detachment between particles and bubbles, and the particle size of coal slime has a significant effect on the flotation behavior of mineral particles (Ai et al., 2017 Wang and Tao, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017). The collision efficiency of fine particles and bubbles, particles and collectors is lower than that of the optimal flotation particle size (Miettinen et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2019). In the coarser and cleaner flotation process of bituminous coal, the recovery of medium-sized flotation combustibles is the highest (Ni et al., 2016). In the study of the influence of medium particle size on the frother properties in the process of coal slime flotation, three particle sizes of coarse (−0.5 + 0.25 mm), medium (−0.25 + 0.074 mm), and fine particle sizes (−0.074 mm) are selected. Carrying out single and mixed flotation, the results show that the flotation results of each particle size are quite different (Tan et al., 2019).

As we all know, the flotation process can be regarded as a time-to-recovery flotation process, and a flotation kinetic model combining recovery and rate function is usually used to evaluate flotation behavior (Ni et al., 2016). Therefore, the flotation time recovery curve is widely used to describe the flotation kinetics, and it can also be completely described by a mathematical model (Zhang et al., 2013). Flotation kinetics is a dynamic system that describes the cumulative combustible recovery of the flotation process as a function of the flotation time to reflect the flotation rate (Zhu et al., 2020).The final recovery $r_{\infty}$ and the flotation rate constant (k) are considered to be the two main parameters that can be obtained from the flotation model to describe the performance of the flotation process (Çilek, 2004; Jameson, 2012). However, few people have studied the effect of particle size on the kinetics of coal slime flotation.

Based on the above research, the contact angle, wetting heat, and step-by-step release tests are used to investigate the effect of particle size on the flotation behavior of coal slime. Six kinetic flotation models were selected to evaluate the effect of particle size on the behavior of coal slime flotation. The maximum cumulative combustible recovery ( $r_{\infty}$ ) flotation rate constant (k) and correlation coefficient ( $R^{2}$ ) are selected as the evaluation parameters of different particle size fly ash flotation kinetic models.

Experimental

Materials

The test coal sample was collected from a coal preparation plant in China. The raw coal used was dried under natural conditions, and then crushed and screened to use slime <0.5 mm for the test study. The test coal sample was stored in a sealed test bag spare. The industrial analysis and element analysis of coal slime are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comprehensive table of industrial analysis and elemental analysis of coal slime.

Industrial analysis				Elemental analysis
M_ad(%)	A_ad(%)	V_ad(%)	FC_ad(%)	C_daf(%)	H_daf(%)	O_daf(%)	N_daf(%)	S_t,daf(%)
1.85	39.75	16.62	41.78	85.78	5.36	4.65	1.70	2.51

ad = air-dry basis; A = ash content; C=carbon; daf = dry ash-free basis; FC = fixed carbon content; H=hydrogen; M = moisture content; N=nitrogen; O=oxygen; S=sulfur; V = volatile content.

It can be seen from Table 1 that the moisture content of the air-dry basis for the preparation of coal slime samples is 1.85%, the ash content of the air-dry basis is 39.75%, the total sulfur content of the air-dry basis is 2.51%, and the total sulfur content of the dry basis is 1.49%. The coal slime belongs to high-ash, low-sulfur coal slime.

Phase test and screening test

X-ray diffractometer (XRD) was used to analyze the phase composition of coal slime. The small sieving test of coal sample is carried out according to “Test Method for Coal Sieving” (GB/T477-2008). The screen sizes of the test set of sieve are: 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.074, and 0.045 mm. Weigh 200 g coal sample for wet sieving to obtain 5 sizes of products, which are dried, weighed, and tested for ash.

Contact angle measurement

The contact angle is measured to reflect the influence of particle size on the hydrophobicity of coal slime. Firstly, press the three-size and full-size coal samples, weigh 150 mg of powder into the tablet model, apply a pressure of 60 Mpa on the tablet machine, hold for 3 min, and demold to obtain small round tablets with a diameter of about 1 cm. A contact angle meter (HARKE-SPCAX3, Beijing Harco) was used to measure the contact angles of the three-size and full-size samples. The deionized water droplets are taken on the surface of the small disc to take an image, and the contact angle is measured by image analysis, and the average value is measured three times for each test. All measurements are performed at room temperature.

Wetting heat measurement

The wetting heat is measured by a C80 calorimeter (Setaram, France). Using deionized water as the wetting fluid, the wetting heat between water and coal slime was measured by microcalorimetry to study the effect of particle size on the hydrophobicity of coal slime. Before measuring the wetting heat of each particle size, weigh 0.2 g of coal slime sample into the bottom of the calorimeter, and place 2 ml of deionized water on the top. After the baseline of the calorimeter is completely stabilized, the film is broken through the moving rod so that the deionized water is in contact with the coal sample. Calculate the wetting heat by integrating the heat flow curve by the baseline integration method.

Flotation tests

The step-by-step release test adopts XFD-1.0 L single tank flotation machine for test. The concentration of coal sample slurry of the three-size and full-size sample is fixed to 100 g/L, the mixing speed is fixed to 1800 r/min, the aeration rate is fixed to 0.06 m³/h, the amount of collector dosage (kerosene), and frother dosage (secoctyl alcohols) is fixed at 600 and 100 g/t, respectively. According to “Coal Preparation Laboratory Step-by-Step Release Flotation Test Method” (MT/T 144-1997), after a rough selection and multiple selections, the clean coal, and tailings that float out are filtered, dried, weighed, and ash measured. The kinetic flotation test adopts the flotation conditions of the step-by-step release test. Stir fully in the flotation tank for 2 min, add the collector dosage, add the frother dosage after another 2 min, and open the aeration valve after another 1 min. Aerate for 10 s, collect clean coal for 3 min, and collect tailings. The collection time of the frother product in the flotation test is 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 180 s. Finally, all products are filtered and dried, weighed, and ash measured. The flotation result evaluation method is evaluated in accordance with GB/T 34164-2017 “Method for Evaluating the Effect of Coal Preparation Plant Flotation Process,” and the calculation is carried out with the following formula: $E_{j} = \frac{R_{j} (100 - A_{j})}{100 - A_{y}}$

where $E_{j}$ is the combustible recovery of clean coal, $R_{j}$ the yield of clean coal, $A_{j}$ the ash content of clean coal, $A_{y}$ the ash content of feed.

Flotation kinetic models

Flotation kinetics is based on uniformity of chemical kinetics to investigate the law of flotation rate, reflecting the speed of the flotation process (Zhu et al., 2020). In the present article, six flotation kinetic models are selected to investigate the influence of different particle sizes on the flotation behavior of coal slime. The models are shown in Table 2. Use Origin software to fit the cumulative combustible recovery of clean coal collected at 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 180 s in the three-size and full-size coal slime flotation tests to 6 flotation kinetic models. The flotation rate constant (k) is defined as function of the cumulative combustible recovery of flotation concentrate and flotation time. The maximum combustible recovery ( $r_{\infty}$ ), flotation rate constant (k), and correlation coefficient ( $R^{2})$ are optimized using Origin.

Table 2.

Six flotation kinetic models.

Serial number	Name of the model	Formula
Model 1	Classical first-order model (Sutherland, 1948)	$r = r_{\infty} [1 - \exp (- k_{1} t)]$
Model 2	First-order model with rectangular distribution of flotabilities (Bayat et al., 2004; Dowling et al., 1985)	$r = r_{\infty} {1 - \frac{1}{k_{2} t} [1 - \exp (- k_{2} t)]}$
Model 3	Fully mixed reactor model (Zhang et al., 2013)	$r = r_{\infty} (1 - \frac{1}{1 + \frac{t}{k_{3}}})$
Model 4	Improved gas and solid adsorption model (Chaves and Ruiz, 2009)	$r = r_{\infty} (\frac{k_{4} t}{1 + k_{4} t})$
Model 5	Second-order kinetic model (Bu et al., 2016; Hernáinz Bermúdez De Castro and Calero De Hoces, 1996)	$r = \frac{r_{\infty}^{2} k_{5} t}{1 + r_{\infty} k_{5} t}$
Model 6	Second-order model with rectangular distribution of flotabilities (Saleh, 2010; Yuan et al., 1996)	$r = r_{\infty} {1 - \frac{1}{k_{6} t} [\ln (1 + k_{6} t)]}$

r — fractional recovery at time t, %; $r_{\infty}$ — fractional ultimate recovery, %; $k_{n}$ — rate constants (n = 1,…,6).

Results and discussion

Phase and particle size analysis of coal slime

XRD was used to determine the mineral composition of coal slime particles, and X-ray diffraction pattern is shown in Figure 1. The results of screening test of coal slime are shown in Table 3.

Figure 1.

X-ray diffractometer pattern of coal slime.

Table 3.

Results of small sieving experiment of floating slime.

Particle size /mm	Yield /%	Ash content /%	Accumulate on the sieve		Total under the sieve
Particle size /mm	Yield /%	Ash content /%	Yield /%	Ash content /%	Yield /%	Ash content /%
– 0.5 + 0.25	15.45	36.79	15.45	36.79	100.00	39.17
– 0.25 + 0.125	17.10	38.30	32.55	37.58	84.55	39.60
– 0.125 + 0.074	13.27	38.47	45.82	37.84	67.45	39.94
– 0.074 + 0.045	13.81	38.85	59.63	38.08	54.18	40.30
– 0.045	40.37	40.79	100.00	39.17	40.37	40.79
total	100.00	39.17

It can be seen from Figure 1 that the main component minerals of coal slime are quartz, nacre, kaolinite, double kaolinite, etc., among which nacre, kaolinite, and double kaolin are clay minerals, which are extremely easy to mud. As a result, the flotation reagent consumes a large amount and easily enters the clean coal through entrainment and cover, which increases the ash content of clean coal.

It can be seen from Table 3 that the yield of −0.5 + 0.25 mm particle size is 15.45%, the ash content is 36.79%, the yield of −0.25 mm particle size is 84.55%, the cumulative ash content is 39.60%, and the yield of −0.25 + 0.074 mm medium particle size is 30.37%, this particle size is the better feed particle size for flotation, and particle size composition of coal slime is suitable for flotation (Shi et al., 2016). The dominant particle size of coal slime sample is −0.074 mm, the yield is 54.18%, and the cumulative ash content is 40.30%, which is a high-ash fine mud. According to the test of classification sizes flotation, particle size has a significant effect on the distribution of coal slime ash. Therefore, three classification sizes are selected: −0.5 + 0.25, −0.25 + 0.074, and −0.074 mm, and full-size −0.5 mm to investigate the effect of particle size on the flotation behavior of coal slime frother.

Contact angle analysis

The contact angle measurement is an effective tool to investigate the difference in hydrophobicity of mineral surfaces (Chen et al., 2017; Xia and Yang, 2013). The contact angle can directly reflect the strength of hydrophobicity of coal slime particle surface. The larger the contact angle, the better the hydrophobicity.The contact angles of different particle sizes are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Contact angle of three-size and full-size coal slime (a: −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size; b: −0.5 + 0.25 mm particle size; c: −0.5 mm particle sizes; d: −0.074 mm particle size).

It can be seen from Figure 2 that the contact angles of the three-size: −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, and −0.074 mm are 67.6°, 59.8°, and 40.8°, respectively, and full-size: −0.5 mm. The contact angle is 47.2°. The contact angle of the full-size −0.5 mm particle size is smaller than the contact angle of the particle sizes −0.25 + 0.074 and −0.5 + 0.25 mm, but greater than contact angle of the particle size −0.074 mm. The −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size of coal slime has the largest contact angle. This particle size of coal slime has the best hydrophobicity.

Wetting heat analysis

The measurement of wetting heat can reflect the hydrophobicity of the surface of different particle sizes of coal slime (Xia et al., 2019). The change of wetting heat of coal slime of different particle sizes before and after kerosene quenching and tempering is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Wetting heat of coal slime of different particle sizes (a:wetting heat before tempering; b: wetting heat after tempering).

It can be seen from Figure 3 that the heat flow curve has obvious differences for different particle sizes of coal slime, and the negative value of the heat of wetting indicates that the adsorption process is exothermic and spontaneous. In the first three sizes of quenching and tempering: −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, and −0.074 mm; the wetting heat value of the three-size is −8.043, −10.288, and −13.213 J/g; full-size: −0.5 mm particle size has a wetting heat value of −12.719 J/g. Three sizes of kerosene after quenching and tempering : −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, and −0.074 mm; the wetting heat value of the three-size is −1.582, −2.750, and −6.656 J/g; full-size: −0.5 mm particle size has a wetting heat value of −4.188 J/g. After kerosene quenching and tempering, the absolute value of the wetting heat value of different particle sizes is smaller than the absolute value before quenching and tempering. The smaller the absolute value of the wetting heat, the weaker the reaction between coal slime and water molecules,the stronger the hydrophobicity (Yang et al., 2019). The absolute value of heat of wetting of −0.25 + 0.074 mm coal slime is smaller than −0.5 + 0.25, −0.074, and −0.5 mm coal slimes. The particle size of coal slime has a significant effect on wetting heat. This is consistent with the contact angle analysis.

Step-by-step release test analysis

In order to investigate the floatability of coal slime of different particle sizes, a step-by-step release test was carried out on coal slime of different particle sizes. The test results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Step-by-step release test of coal slime of different particle sizes.

It can be seen from Figure 4 that different particle sizes of coal slimes are subjected to a step-by-step release test under the same flotation conditions. When the clean coal ash content is 10.5%, the yield of −0.5, −0.5 + 0.25, −0.25 + 0.074, and −0.074 mm particle sizes of coal slime is: 43.69%, 46.32%, 48.10%, and 41.89%, respectively, and the corresponding theoretical clean coal combustible recovery: 64.56%, 65.24%, 67.22%, and 61.98%. According to “Coal (Mud) Floatability Evaluation Method” (GB/T30047-2013) for evaluation. From the combustible recovery body of the clean coal of different particle sizes, it can be seen that: −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size coal slime has better floatability, followed by −0.5 + 0.25 mm, and again −0.5 mm, and finally −0.074 mm particle size coal slime. This is consistent with contact angle analysis results.

Effect of particle size on flotation kinetics

In the flotation process, the relationship between cumulative combustible recovery of clean coal of different particle sizes and flotation time is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Effect of particle size on the accumulated combustible recovery of clean coal.

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the accumulative combustible recovery of −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size of clean coal increases faster than −0.5 + 0.25, −0.5, and −0.074 mm is the slowest. In the whole flotation process, the combustible recovery of the clean coal of each particle size ranges from large to small: −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, −0.5, −0.074, and −0.25 + 0.074 mm has the largest flotation kinetic curve slope in the early stage of flotation, and −0.074 mm particle size has the smallest flotation kinetic curve slope in the early stage of flotation. In the 60 s flotation time, the cumulative combustible recovery of −0.25 + 0.074 and −0.5 + 0.25 mm particle sizes of clean coal reached 80%, while −0.074 and −0.5 mm particle sizes needed more. After more flotation time, after 180 s, the final combustible recovery of all particle sizes exceeds 80%. After the classification treatment, the separation efficiency of part of coal slime is improved, and the combustible recovery is higher in −0.25 + 0.074 mm flotation.

Analysis of the kinetic model of coal slime flotation of different particle sizes

In the flotation kinetics test of coal slime of different particle sizes, the data of the cumulative combustible recovery of the clean coal at 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 180 s were recorded, and the kinetics were fitted to 6 flotation kinetics using Origin software (Table 2). The maximum combustible recovery ( $r_{\infty}$ ), flotation rate constant (k), and correlation coefficient ( $R^{2}$ ) are analyzed. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Comparison of six kinetic models and different particle sizes of coal slime flotation test data (a: −0.5 mm particle size; b: −0.5 + 0.25 mm particle size; c: −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle sizes; d: −0.074 mm particle size).

Table 4.

Nonlinear regression results of six models fitting different particle sizes coal slime flotation data.

Models	−0.5 mm		−0.5 + 0.25 mm		−0.25 + 0.074 mm		−0.074 mm
Models	k (s⁻¹)	$r_{\infty}$ (%)	k (s⁻¹)	$r_{\infty}$ (%)	K (s⁻¹)	$r_{\infty}$ (%)	K (s⁻¹)	$r_{\infty}$ (%)
1	0.0365	84.4702	0.0395	89.8557	0.0473	91.4205	0.0342	79.4078
2	0.0747	93.7038	0.0814	99.3052	0.0988	99.6445	0.0704	88.1086
3	22.9561	100.0342	21.6101	105.5101	17.3647	105.7157	25.5888	94.4344
4	0.0417	100.1638	0.0463	105.5154	0.0576	105.7247	0.0391	94.4338
5	0.0004	100.1655	0.0004	105.5165	0.0005	105.724 9	0.0004	94.4333
6	0.0864	109.0354	0.0974	114.2747	0.1245	113.5155	0.0807	103.0142

It can be seen from Table 4 that the test value of $r_{\infty}$ gradually increases from Models 1 to 6, and the $r_{\infty}$ values of Models 3, 4, and 5 are similar. $R^{2}$ is used to compare the fitting accuracy of models with different numbers of independent variables and different degrees of freedom (Yuan et al., 1996). The maximum value of $r_{\infty}$ for Models 3, 4, 5, and 6 of −0.5, −0.5 + 0.25, −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle sizes are all >100%; the maximum value of Model 6 of −0.074 mm particle size is >100%. This is unreasonable. Because the maximum cumulative combustible recovery obtained from the flotation test is 100%, this is a theoretical value. Theoretically, the maximum value $r_{\infty}$ calculated by the kinetic model is also at most 100%. The reason why these models are unreasonable is the low convergence rate, The time to obtain the maximum yield ( $r_{\infty}$ ) value in the fitting curve of these models is much greater than the value in the flotation test (Ni et al., 2016). Except for Models 3 and 6, the maximum flotation rate constant was obtained at a medium particle size, which is consistent with other researchers (Muganda et al., 2011). The −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size has the largest flotation rate constant and maximum value ( $r_{\infty}$ ), which is consistent with the test results in Figure 5, that is, the medium particle size shows better flotation behavior during the flotation process.

The test data fitted with six kinetic models were used for further evaluation. It can be seen from Figure 6 that the correlation coefficient $R^{2}$ values of the six kinetic models are all >0.9800, which is acceptable, indicating that all kinetic models are consistent with the experimental data. The $R^{2}$ value of Model 2 is the largest in flotation of different particle sizes, indicating that Model 2 can fit the flotation results more reasonably.

Conclusions

Three sizes are obtained through experimental research: −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, and −0.074 mm, the contact angles are 67.6°, 59.8°, and 40.8°, respectively, and the full-size −0.5 mm, the contact angle is 47.2°. It can be seen that the contact angle of −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size of coal slime is the largest. This particle size of coal slime has the best hydrophobicity.

Before and after quenching and tempering of collector, the wetting heat value of three sizes of −0.25 + 0.074, −0.5 + 0.25, and −0.074 mm increased from −8.043 to −1.582 J/g, −10.288 increased to −2.750 J/g, and −13.213 increased to −6.665 J/g, the full-size increased from −12.719 to −4.188 J/g, a negative value indicates that the adsorption process is exothermic and spontaneous, the smaller the absolute value of the wetting heat, the stronger the hydrophobicity of coal slime.

Through the flotation test, it can be obtained that the cumulative combustible recovery of −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size clean coal increases faster than −0.5 + 0.25, −0.5, and −0.074 mm particle size clean coal is the slowest. The separation efficiency of part of coal slime is improved after the classification treatment, and the −0.25 + 0.074 mm particle size coal slime has a higher combustibles recovery during the flotation.

In the flotation of full-size and three-size coal slime, the medium size can obtain the largest flotation number rate constant. The medium size shows better flotation behavior during the flotation process. The fitting results of flotation data show that coal slime flotation can be better described for each particle size with first-order model with rectangular distribution of flotabilities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial supports from the Cultivation project of Guizhou University (No.[2020]13) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (51864010).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received financial supports from the Cultivation project of Guizhou University (No. [2020]13) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (51864010) for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tianshen Lu

References

Yang

(2017) Flotation characteristics and flotation kinetics of fine wolframite. Powder Technology 305: 377–381.

Bayat

Ucurum

Poole

(2004) Effects of size distribution on flotation kinetics of Turkish sphalerite. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy 113(1): 53–59.

Xie

Chen

, et al. (2016) The order of kinetic models in coal fines flotation. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization 37(3): 113–123.

Chang

Chen

Peng

(2017) Understanding and improving the flotation of coals with different degrees of surface oxidation. Powder Technology 321: 190–196.

Chaves

Ruiz

(2009) Considerations on the kinetics of froth flotation of ultrafine coal contained in tailings. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization 29(6): 289–297.

Chen

Wang

Shi

, et al. (2019) Experimental research on coal slime flotation process based on orthogonal test design. Industry and Mine Automation 45(02): 91–95.

Chen

Yang

Chen

, et al. (2017) Wetting thermodynamics of low rank coal and attachment in flotation. Fuel 207: 214–225.

Çilek

(2004) Estimation of flotation kinetic parameters by considering interactions of the operating variables. Minerals Engineering 17(1): 81–85.

Dowling

Klimpel

Aplan

(1985) Model discrimination in the flotation of a porphyry copper ore. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 2(2): 87–101.

10.

Hernáinz Bermúdez De Castro

Calero De Hoces

(1996) Flotation rate of celestite and calcite. Chemical Engineering Science 51(1): 119–125.

11.

Jameson

(2012) The effect of surface liberation and particle size on flotation rate constants. Minerals Engineering 36–38: 132–137.

12.

Kato

Matsueda

(2018) Leading edge of coal utilization technologies for gasification and cokemaking. Kona Powder And Particle Journal 35: 112–121.

13.

Xia

Xie

(2018) Effect of particle shape on the flotation kinetics of fine coking coal. Journal of Cleaner Production 195: 470–475.

14.

Miettinen

Ralston

Fornasiero

(2010) The limits of fine particle flotation. Minerals Engineering 23(5): 420–437.

15.

Muganda

Zanin

Grano S

(2011) Benchmarking flotation performance: Single minerals. International Journal of Mineral Processing 98(3): 182–194.

16.

Xia

, et al. (2018) Effect of slimes on the flotation recovery and kinetics of coal particles. Fuel 220: 159–166.

17.

Xie

Jin

, et al. (2016) The difference in flotation kinetics of various size fractions of bituminous coal between rougher and cleaner flotation processes. Powder Technology 292: 210–216.

18.

Niu

Xia

Peng

(2018) Analysis of coal wettability by inverse gas chromatography and its guidance for coal flotation. Fuel 228: 290–296.

19.

Peng

Mao

Xia

, et al. (2018) Ultrasonic flotation cleaning of high-ash lignite and its mechanism. Fuel 220: 558–566.

20.

Saleh

(2010) A study on the performance of second order models and two phase models in iron ore flotation. Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing 44: 215–230.

21.

Shi

Wang

, et al. (2018) Improving the flotation performance of coking coal using the reverse-direct flotation process. Energy Sources Part A-Recovery Utilization And Environmental Effects 40(23): 2886–2894.

22.

Shi

Gen

, et al. (2016) Mechanism of the effect of fine coal with different densities on coarse coal flotation. Journal of China Coal Society 41(07): 1813–1819.

23.

Sutherland

(1948) Physical chemistry of flotation. XI. Kinetics of the flotation process. The Journal of Physical and Colloid Chemistry 52(2): 394–425.

24.

Tan

Liang

Peng

, et al. (2019) Effect of particle size on the froth property in coal flotation. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology 48(01): 195–203.

25.

Wang

Tao

(2017) Effect of particle size on the hydrophobicity characterization of low-rank coal surfaces. Energy Sources. Part A, Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 39(12): 1201–1209.

26.

Xia

Yang

(2013) Effect of pre-wetting time on oxidized coal flotation. Powder Technology 250: 63–66.

27.

Xia

(2018) A novel and effective method for removing organic sulfur from low rank coal. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2708–2710.

28.

Xia

Yang

Zhang

, et al. (2019) Enhancement of the surface hydrophobicity of low-rank coal by adsorbing DTAB: An experimental and molecular dynamics simulation study. Fuel 239: 145–152.

29.

Xia

Yang

Zhang

, et al. (2019) Performance of used lubricating oil as flotation collector for the recovery of clean low-rank coal. Fuel 239: 717–725.

30.

Xing

Gui

Cao

, et al. (2017) Clean low-rank-coal purification technique combining cyclonic-static microbubble flotation column with collector emulsification. Journal of Cleaner Production 153: 657–672.

31.

Xing

Gui

, et al. (2017) Effect of kaolinite and montmorillonite on fine coal flotation. Fuel 195: 284–289.

32.

Yang

Zhu

, et al. (2019) Effects of particle size on the flotation behavior of coal fly ash. Waste Management 85: 490–497.

33.

Yuan

Palsson

Forssberg

KSE

(1996) Statistical interpretation of flotation kinetics for a complex sulphide ore. Minerals Engineering 9(4): 429–442.

34.

Zhang

Liu

Cao

, et al. (2013) Effects of particle size on lignite reverse flotation kinetics in the presence of sodium chloride. Powder Technology 246: 658–663.

35.

Zhang

Zhou

Liu

, et al. (2017) Effects of particle size on flotation parameters in the separation of diaspore and kaolinite. Powder Technology 317: 253–263.

36.

Zhu

Wei

Hou

, et al. (2020) Thermodynamic behavior and flotation kinetics of an ionic liquid microemulsion collector for coal flotation. Fuel 262: 116627.

Effects of particle size on the flotation behavior of coal slime

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Experimental

Materials

Phase test and screening test

Contact angle measurement

Wetting heat measurement

Flotation tests

Flotation kinetic models

Results and discussion

Phase and particle size analysis of coal slime

Contact angle analysis

Wetting heat analysis

Step-by-step release test analysis

Effect of particle size on flotation kinetics

Analysis of the kinetic model of coal slime flotation of different particle sizes

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References