An integrated approach for coal tailings management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A detailed study on an integrated process featuring three distinct mechanisms (i.e., hydrophobic extraction, coagulation and flocculation) is presented. In this process, fine coals in the tailings stream are extracted into a mineral oil by hydrophobic extraction, while coagulant and flocculant are used to aid effluent clarification by coagulation/flocculation. With a single stage process, a coal‐in‐oil mixture is produced as a potential fuel, while clarifying the water for recycling. The hydrophobicity of coal is found to be a key parameter in coal extraction. The addition of mineral oil prior to flocculant and coagulant, especially in the presence of fine clays, is beneficial for recovering weakly hydrophobic fine coals. Fine clays are found to stabilize coal‐rich oil droplets, reducing coal recovery. The presence of hydrophobic coal enhances droplet coalescence and improves process performance. In a case study using a tailings stream from OBED coal preparation plant, it was found that re‐grinding of original tailings is necessary to expose fresh hydrophobic surfaces. Applying this single stage unit operation to a tailings containing 52% ash, a combustible recovery greater than 85% in the form of coal‐in‐oil mixture at product ash content less than 14 wt% was achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".