1998
DOI: 10.1021/ef970181z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Characterization of Some North American Coals

Abstract: The structure of five U.S. coals (three of low rank or sub-bituminous and two of high rank) has been investigated using reactivity criteria and spectroscopic methods. The results suggest that one of the high-rank coals PSOC 831 contains more cross-linking groups within its macromolecular structure than the other high-rank coal DECS 12. These cross-linkages help to explain some previously reported anomalous results resulting from reactions of PSOC 831 with hydrogen in the presence of MoS 2 . The DECS 9 and PSOC… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(51 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A physically associated coal model was set against the molecular/macromolecular model. Evidence to date suggests that the molecular/macromolecular model might apply to lignites, brown coals and sub-bituminous coals [55,56], but not so well to bituminous coals. While the debate on these opposite structure models is continuing, new 1 H NMR experiments appear to reveal that a correlation between molecular mobility derived from proton relaxation times and molecular/macromolecular phases is much more complicated than previously thought [52,53].…”
Section: Organic Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A physically associated coal model was set against the molecular/macromolecular model. Evidence to date suggests that the molecular/macromolecular model might apply to lignites, brown coals and sub-bituminous coals [55,56], but not so well to bituminous coals. While the debate on these opposite structure models is continuing, new 1 H NMR experiments appear to reveal that a correlation between molecular mobility derived from proton relaxation times and molecular/macromolecular phases is much more complicated than previously thought [52,53].…”
Section: Organic Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…There coal is regarded as a mono-phase of associated macromolecules with average molar masses in the order of a few thousand g mol −1 and a network structure is held together mainly by non-covalent bonds, which include ionic forces, hydrogen bonding, charge-transfer and aromatic π -π interactions [10,[47][48][49][50][51]. The average molecular size and the cross-linking in bituminous coals seem to decrease with increasing rank to a minimum at around 86% carbon [55][56][57]. Moreover, the characterization of solvent-swollen coal by proton spin diffusion and small-angle neutron scattering indicated that part of the volume expansion in solvent swelling is related to a formation of nanoscalic phase-separated domains, and this micro-heterogeneity makes the application of statistical mechanical theories to the swelling of coal dubious [54].…”
Section: Organic Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct liquefaction has been shown to be a potential process route to make coal-derived JP-900 . In the liquefaction research, we evaluated Pittsburgh and Blind Canyon coals structurally to determine the relationship of the coal structure to the types of products produced. Both coals showed good conversions in direct liquefaction experiments. Blind Canyon was one of the coals tested that had the highest conversions, while Pittsburgh coal conversions were typically a little lower than Blind Canyon. However, direct liquefaction of these coals produced liquids of very different character. Hexane-soluble liquids from Blind Canyon coal contained one- and two-ring aromatics as well as long-chain alkanes (up to C 32 ); while hexane-solubles from Pittsburgh coal were mainly two-ring compounds, an attractive characteristic for thermally stable jet fuel once the liquid was hydrogenated. However, there were issues with using direct liquefaction. The previous research was done using pure solvents, that is, phenanthrene, dihydrophenanthrene, and pyrene. Another constraint was that long construction times and high capital costs for a grass-roots liquefaction plant made it prudent to examine the possibility of incorporating coal, or coal-derived materials, into existing oil refinery operations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%