See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311898734

Review on chemical upgrading of coal: Production processes, potential

applications and recent developments

Article  in  Fuel Processing Technology · April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.12.010

CITATIONS READS

10 410

3 authors:

Moshfiqur Rahman Deepak Pudasainee

University of Alberta University of Alberta
59 PUBLICATIONS   556 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   502 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rajender Gupta
University of Alberta
189 PUBLICATIONS   6,433 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oxy-Fuel Combustion Technology View project

PhD Project - Contribution of particulate emissions from power stations to ambient particulates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deepak Pudasainee on 05 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuproc

Review

Review on chemical upgrading of coal: Production processes, potential

applications and recent developments
Moshfiqur Rahman, Deepak Pudasainee, Rajender Gupta ⁎
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2V4, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coal is a major source of energy. In order to overcome the operational problems and environmental issues related
Received 7 October 2016 to direct utilization of coal, coal upgrading research and development works are in progress in terms of moisture
Received in revised form 9 December 2016 removal, demineralization, removal of harmful constituents such as sulfur, mercury etc. There have been two
Accepted 11 December 2016
major approaches to achieve this: dissolving minerals out of coal – the product is termed as ultra clean coal
Available online xxxx
(UCC) and solvent extraction of coaly matter – the product termed as ash-free coal (AFC). In this paper, current
Keywords:
knowledge regarding chemical upgrading of coal has been reviewed. In particular, production process and effects
Chemical upgrading of coal of various parameters on yield and product quality have been discussed. The potential applications of the
Ultra-clean coal demineralized coals and the economic assessment with respect to commercialization of this process have also
Ash-free coal been presented.
Applications of UCC/AFC Chemical treatment processes have been demonstrated as the most effective techniques for removal of ash
Clean energy forming minerals from coal to produce coal with minimal or almost no ash. In general, the ash content of UCC
is reported within the range of 0.15 to 0.6% either by treating bituminous coal with HF followed by HCl or
HNO3. Most effective treatment available in literature is HF followed by HNO3, achieving ash content as low as
0.15%. Organic solvents like polar, non-polar and mixed solvent have been used to extract the organic matters
from coal to produce AFC. In general, extraction yield has been found higher at high treatment temperature
with polar solvents.
The advantages of using UCC and AFC are that they emit lesser pollutants and cause less or no abrasion/erosion
and fouling/slagging in the boilers. However, the literature on economic evaluation of AFC applications is scarce
and needs to be carried out in future.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2. Physical separation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3. Chemical demineralization for ultra clean coal (UCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1. Acid and alkali digestion method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.1. Alkali digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.1.2. Acid soaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.1.3. Caustic soda regeneration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.4. Effect of the acid or alkali concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.5. Effect of temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.6. Effect of particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.7. Effect of coal properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2. Challenges in demineralization of coal to produce UCC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. Extraction of organic matters to produce ash-free coal (AFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1. Effect of solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1.1. Extraction of coal by polar solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1.2. Extraction of coal by non-polar solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rajender.gupta@ualberta.ca (R. Gupta).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.12.010
0378-3820/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
36 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56

4.1.3. Mixed solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.1.4. Effect of pre-treatment with alkalis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2. Effect of temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3. Effect of initial pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4. Effect of particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.5. Effect of coal properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.6. Challenges in demineralization of coal to produce AFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5. Potential applications of UCC and AFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1. Application of UCC/AFC in chemical looping combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2. Catalytic gasification of ash free coals to produce syngas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.3. Use of AFC as a blending agent in coke making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4. Production of anode coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.5. Application of AFC as a fuel in direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.6. Coal water slurry (CWS) or coal water slurry fuel (CWSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6. Economic study of AFC production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.1. UCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.2. AFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1. Introduction
The wide abundance of coal reserves and lower cost is increasing its
utilization to produce energy and fuels. The direct utilization of coal has
several problems, such as higher ash forming minerals and moisture
contents; lower heating value and the environmental pollution. In con-
ventional combustion processes minerals in coal are mostly rejected as
ash from boiler or particulate control devices or emitted into the atmo-
sphere as particle matter. The combustion of coal causes various envi-
ronmental problems such as emission of particles, SOx, NOx,
greenhouse gases, toxic metals emission [1–3]. Due to these several
problems with direct utilization of coal, coal upgrading has been priori-
tized. History of coal chemical cleaning dates back to 1940s in Germany,
where a process was developed for removing ash-forming minerals
from physically cleaned black coal concentrates, involving heating the
coal as a paste with aqueous alkali solution, followed by solid/liquid sep-
aration, acid washing and water washing [4,5].
There has been a growing interest in upgrading of low-rank coals
such as lignite and sub-bituminous, in term of drying and demineraliza-
tion, influenced by increasing demand of power and limited supply of
the premium coals. Upgrading of coal can be done for several aspects
such as moisture removal, de-mineralization, removal of harmful

Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of producing A) clean coal, B) UCC and C) AFC, and their characteristics.
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
constituents such as sulfur and mercury. There are two basic approach
of coal cleaning: physical and chemical cleaning. Physical cleaning pro-
cess in general is cleaning the coal with only physical processes, where-
as, chemical cleaning methods can be divided into two categories: use of
chemicals that dissolve minerals or solvents for dissolving the coaly
matters. The first approach produces UCC using acids or alkalis dissolv-
ing all the minerals leaving the organic coal matrix under hydrothermal
conditions. Second approach is dissolving organic components of the
coal in organic solvent (as discussed in Section 4).
Fig. 1 demonstrates three pathways for removing mineral matters in
coal – one physical and two chemicals. The detail production process
has been explained in Sections 3 and 4. The objective of this review is
to provide state of art knowledge of chemical cleaning process. Howev-
er, a brief description of physical cleaning process is described in Section
2. Physical process is suitable for cleaning of high ash containing coal,
whereas UCC and AFC (by chemical cleaning process) are suitable for
cleaning low ash containing coal. In clean coal preparation by physical
cleaning process minerals are separated by density difference and the
coal structure does not change at all. Similarly, in UCC production pro-
cess there is no change in coal structure; only the acid/alkali reacts
with mineral matters. On the other hand, in AFC production organic
matters dissolve in solvent and mineral matters remains in the residual
part, ultimately resulting chemical changes in the coal structure.
Physical cleaning of coal can be considered as a pre-cleaning step or
the first step to go for chemical cleaning process and is not very effective
in removing finely distributed minerals in coal matrix. Physical coal
cleaning techniques in broad are classified based on difference in specif-
ic gravity and surface properties (wettability). Some of the widely used
techniques are gravity separation, froth flotation, oil agglomeration,
magnetic separation, electrostatic separation, and air dense medium
fluidization [6,7]. The brief descriptions of these technologies are avail-
able in the recent review by Meshram et al. [8]. Physical coal cleaning
has several limitations such as gravity separation requires feed size larg-
er than 0.5 mm; very fine grinding (energy intensive process) is neces-
sary to release pyrite, only pyritic sulfur can be removed. Because of
these limitations, and in order to remove finely distributed minerals
and chemically bounded species from coal matrix chemical cleaning
process has been utilized.
Katalambula and Gupta [9] presented a comprehensive review on
both physical and chemical cleaning needed for reducing mineral con-
tent as well as moisture content of coal. They reviewed some of the
upgrading technologies for coal upgrading in terms of their moisture,
ash, and other pollutant emission, including technological development
and commercialization status. They argued that despite the availability
of various potential techniques the coal upgrading has not been realized
in depth. There are several reviews on physical beneficiation coals [8,
10]. Meshram et al. [8] briefly presented chemical beneficiation of coal
including acid leaching, alkali leaching and leaching of coal with alkali
followed by acid mainly for production of UCC. Even though, UCC and
AFC production, their application in various purposes have been priori-
tized in the recent past, there is no comprehensive review work pre-
senting the state-of-the-art technology related to UCC and AFC. In
order to fulfill this gap, in this paper, UCC and AFC production process,
effects of demineralizing reagents or solvents, effect of temperature,
time etc. has been carefully reviewed, correlated with the available liter-
ature and conclusions have been drawn. The potential applications of
the demineralized coals and their economic assessment with respect
to commercialization have also been discussed.
2. Physical separation methods
Physical beneficiation processes, such as washing, froth flotation and
oil agglomeration have been applied to reduce mineral matter [11–14].
Recent years, air dense medium fluidized bed techniques have been ap-
plied for removal of mineral matter. These methods are capable of re-
moving mineral matters those are not within the coal matrix [6,8].
37
Froth flotation technique has been used for the beneficiation of finer
coal particles (b0.6 mm in size) for N50 years [8,15]. This method re-
quires a surface active agent which stabilizes the froth formed during
the separation of minerals and works on the principal of gravity and
wettability of the coal particles.
Oil agglomeration process is a technique for cleaning finer coal par-
ticles and works based on the principle that hydrophobic coal particles
undergo agglomeration and separated from the mineral matters by
the addition of suitable oil that helps to wet and agglomerate the coal
particles [16,17].
Air dense medium fluidized bed technique is a very simple and an
economic process for coal beneficiation of feed particle size of 1–5 cm.
Fluidized bed allows the lighter coal particles containing less minerals
to float on the surface of the bed and high mineral containing heavier
material to sink down the bed and cleaner coal can be easily separated
[6,8].
These methods have several disadvantages, such as, these require
finer coal particles and not suitable for removing chemically bound min-
erals. These techniques are only capable of reducing limited amount of
mineral matters, the ash content by more than half of the original
amount [18,19]. Physical separation technique has been used for very
fine particles, typically 3–5 μm size, to separate organic components
(macerals) and inorganic constituents (ash forming minerals) from
each other utilizing density gradient separation method under very
high centrifugal forces [14,20–23].
3. Chemical demineralization for ultra clean coal (UCC)
3.1. Acid and alkali digestion method
UCC has limited ash content (0.1 to 1.0 wt%) and its combustion is
environmental friendly (less pollutants emission compared with the
raw coal) and causes less attrition and fouling in the boilers. Fig. 1
shows the overall conceptual diagram of producing clean coal by phys-
ical cleaning (path A), UCC (path B) and AFC (path C) by chemical
cleaning methods. Physical separation method is more effective for
high minerals containing feed coal, whereas, chemical separation meth-
od is more suited for low minerals containing feed coals.
Chemical treatment processes is the most effective technique for re-
moval of ash forming minerals from coal to produce UCC and have been
extensively used [11–13,24–27]. This method requires reagents for the
selective leaching of inorganic constituents. The acid and alkali reagents
those are used in chemical demineralization processes are HF [11,26],
HCl [26], HNO3 [12], H2SO4 [28] and NaOH [24]. Beside these some oxi-
dizing agents like H2O2 [29], FeCl3 [28] have also been employed. The
two most common steps used in demineralization during UCC produc-
tion are HF treatment followed by HNO3 washing.
Steel et al. [26] treated Australian bituminous coal with HCl (aq.),
which essentially dissolved all the minerals associated with Ca, Ma
and Fe as carbonates, sulfates and phosphates but very little aluminosil-
icate compounds. It was also observed that HCl (aq.) extracted essen-
tially all of the Na and some of the Al, K and Ti but not Si from mineral
matters. HCl is unreactive towards pyrites; therefore, not all the Fe is ex-
tracted from the coal. Consequently, HF dissolves all of the Al, Si and K in
the mineral matter at 20 °C. Thus, HF was found to be particularly effec-
tive to react with most of the minerals present in the coal. Only pyrites
present in the coal does not significantly react with HF. Therefore, it has
been suggested pretreatment with HCl is necessary followed by HF
treatment for an effective removal of minerals from black coal [30].
But, Steel et al. [27] did not consider pretreatment with HCl as a feasible
option for the complete removal of Ca and Mg, which uses HF for pro-
ducing UCC.
Steel et al. [27] also developed a model to determine the concentra-
tion of fluoride complex, Al and Si species, free fluoride and hydrogen
ions and molecular HF in solution while aluminosilicate compounds
were treated with aq. HF. This model describes the chemical
38 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
mechanisms of the dissolution behavior of the minerals in coal in aq. HF
and unwanted precipitation of various fluoride compounds. They
claimed that their model is applicable for the development of chemical
strategies for dissolving almost all the minerals from coal for the pro-
duction of UCC containing b 0.1 (wt%) mineral matters and capable of
eliminating the unwanted precipitation of fluoride compounds.
In another paper Steel and Patrick [11] reported successful elimina-
tion of mineral matter in a high volatile coal of UK origin utilizing aque-
ous HF followed by aq. HNO3 for 3 h at 65 °C in each case. HF reduces the
ash content to about 2.6 (wt%) from 7.9 (wt%), which contains mainly
the pyrites (FeS2), unreactive towards HF. During the process some fluo-
ride compounds are formed such as, AlF3, NaAlF4, CaF2 and MgF2. Suc-
cessive treatment with HNO3 reduced the ash content further to 0.6%.
They also found that HNO3 reacts with FeS2 only when the concentra-
tion N 1 M, preferentially with the organic coal structure.
Steel and Patrick [12] also found that fluoride content of the coal in-
creases tremendously after HF treatment and then drops down upon
HNO3 leaching. Increment of N content of the coal was observed, due
to the attack of the nitronium ion (NO+2 ) to the carbonaceous coal struc-
ture, the overall ash content of the UCC reduced to 0.2 (wt%) and major
element in ash was Fe from unreacted pyrites. In a two stage leaching
process using HF followed by HNO3, HNO3 can oxidize Fe in pyrite
(from Fe2 + to Fe3 +) and oxidize S in pyrite (from S− to SO24 −), as
shown in following reactions [12,31].
FeS2 þ 5HNO3 →Fe3þ þ 2SO4 2− þ Hþ þ 5NO þ 2H2 O
2HNO3 ⇌NO2 þ þ NO3 − þ H2 O
HNO3 þ 2H2 SO4 ⇌NO2 þ þ H3 Oþ þ HSO4 −
Steel & Patrick [12] reported that pyrite in coal can be dissolved
completely even with lower HNO3 concentration range of approximate-
ly 0.03 M. During HNO3 leaching, carbonaceous matrix is affected, lead-
ing to a loss of C and H content, loss of calorific value (CV), and increased
N and O contents. They proposed that H2SO4, which is formed from the
reaction between HNO3 and pyrite, may react with HNO3 to form NO+ 2 .
They stated that concentrations of HNO3 and H2SO4 at the site, where
pyrite is dissolving might be sufficient for NO+ 2 to form. Once a powerful
nitrating agent (NO+ 2 ion) is formed, it reacts with the carbonaceous
coal matrix.
The combustion behavior of UCC containing 0.3 (wt%) ash was in-
vestigated by Rubiera et al. [13] in drop tube furnace operating at
1000 °C. The char obtained from chemically treated coal showed in-
creased reactivity compared with the original coal and increased the
combustion efficiency, with decrease in SO2 and increase in NO emis-
sion, due to HNO3 treatment. These results are also supporting the find-
ings of Steel et al. [12], where (NO+ 2 ion) was formed from HNO3 and
subsequently reacted with the carbonaceous coal structure.
Steel and Patrick [32] also developed a process by which selectively
Si(IV) and Al(III) can be separated from coal and this process may be ap-
plicable to other areas like mineral processing technology, besides UCC
production. Utilizing this technique, they were able to separate 65
(wt%) of Si(IV) selectively from a bituminous coal. Kizgut et al. [20] in-
vestigated the thermal behavior of demineralized bituminous coals
from Turkish, Australian and Polish origin. They successfully
demineralized these coals by applying HF followed by HNO3 treatment
and obtained the coals with the ash content ranging from 0.15 to 0.41%.
They observed that the N and O content of the coal increased 2.15 to
3.94% and 11.82 to 17.66%, respectively. These changes were resulted
from the oxidation and nitrification effect of HNO3. Consequently, C
and H content of the coals were decreased by 7.49 to 12.48% and 0.62
to 1.39%, respectively. As a result, the higher heating values (HHV) of
these coals were decreased.
Sharma and Singh [33] developed an alkali-acid assisted leaching
technique for demineralization of coal to remove the toxic minerals
(Pb, As, Hg, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Ti, Sb, Na, K, Ga, and Ge) and pyrites in a
mild temperature and ambient pressure conditions. Utilizing this con-
venient leaching process they demineralized a moderately high ash
(17%) containing coal (Talcher coal), using water alone, aqueous alkali
(NaOH) alone, HCl alone, and aqueous NaOH in combination with HCl.
They manage to clean the coal to a reasonably good extent up to 75%
(degree of demineralization) using 10% NaOH followed by 2% aq. HCl
treatment. Increasing NaOH concentration beyond 10% did not improve
the degree of demineralization. They also manage to recover the
chemicals used in the process, which makes the process cost-effective
and more feasible.
Nabeel et al. [34] produced UCC from low-grade Topa coal by alkali-
acid leaching using 20% aq. NaOH and 10% H2SO4 utilizing stepwise
leaching technique and around 75% degree of demineralization was
achieved. Utilizing even lower concentration (5%) of alkali-acid (2 h of
each) treatment, after three consecutive steps 80% degree of demineral-
ization was achieved.
Recently, Jorjani et al. [35] introduced microwave irradiation tech-
nique for pretreatment and sequential leaching with HF followed by
HNO3 treatment for producing UCC. They observed that 1.5 h treatment
of native and microwaved (900 W for 7 min) coal with HF (2 M) re-
duced ash content significantly by 35 and 43%, respectively. Extended
treatment time to 2.5 h enhanced the removal efficiency by 53 and
56% respectively. Further, increment of the time (N 2.5 h) did not result
in any significant reduction of ash content.
Wijaya et al. [36] produced UCC from two Victorian brown coals by
sequential and single leaching techniques utilizing weak acids like,
pyroligneous acid (waste solution derived from wood carbonization)
and citric acid (biodegradable organic acid). A strong chelating agent,
disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Na-EDTA) was also
employed with the combination of dilute acid (1 M HNO3) for breaking
off the metallic complexes in the coal matrix [37].
Demineralization of coal to produce UCC depends on the number of
factors, such as, severity of the operating conditions, type of reagents or
chemicals used for digestion and their concentrations, properties of
coals, particle sizes and type of bounding of mineral matters in the
coal structure.
These technologies in large scale have not been commercialized as
yet. Fig. 2 shows the UCC production process diagram in Yancoal Austra-
lia Ltd. UCC Energy Pty Limited, a privately held company in Cessnock,
NSW, Australia, founded in 1987 and producing UCC by NaOH treat-
ment followed by H2SO4 washing. The overall ash content of the extract
is b0.2%. The production of UCC from bituminous coal in plant scale with
regeneration of leaching chemicals has been developed in Australia [38,
39]. Yancoal Australia Ltd. was formed in 2004 with the intention of pro-
ducing UCC. The pilot plant is located on the outskirts of Cessnock in
New South Wales; nominal feed coal capacity is 350 kg/h, correspond-
ing to nominal UCC output in the range of 1–2 kt/year [40].
The major reactions involved in the UCC production process at
Yancol Australia [41] are described briefly as follows:
3.1.1. Alkali digestion
During alkali digestion, the major reactions involve are the dissolu-
tion of silica and formation of solid sodalite and small amounts of
other impurities such as Al, Fe, P and organic carbon may also dissolve
during digestion.
SiO2 ðsÞ þ 2NaOH→Na2 SiO3 ðlÞ þ H2 O
3Al2 Si2 O5 ðOHÞ4 ðsÞ þ 8NaOH→2Na4 Si3 Al3 O12 ðOHÞ ðsÞ þ 9H2 O
3.1.2. Acid soaking
Caustic leached coal is treated with dil. H2SO4 in order to dissolve So-
dalite, which produces a mixture of sodium and aluminium sulfates and
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56 39

Fig. 2. UCC production diagram in Yancoal Australia Ltd. Redrawn after [40].

acid-soluble silicic acid. of − 75 μm coal particles with HF concentration ranging from 0.5 to
3.5 M, ash removal increased significantly with the increase of concen-
2Na4 Si3 Al3 O12 ðOHÞ ðsÞ þ 13H2 SO4 →4Na2 SO4 þ 3Al2 ðSO4 Þ3 þ 6H2 SiO3 tration and achieved 57 to 71% ash removal from different coal samples
þ 8H2 O using 3.5 M HF solution. Further, increasing the concentration to 5 M,
the ash removal increased slightly but not that significant, i.e. the ash re-
Iron dissolution moval rate was slower. They also observed that by increasing the HF
concentration, there was no significant difference in the ash removal be-
Fe2 O3 þ 3H2 SO4 →Fe2 ðSO4 Þ3 þ 3H2 O tween the microwaved and non-microwaved coal samples.

Caustic soda neutralization 3.1.5. Effect of temperature

Based on the limited number of studies, it can be generalized that the
2NaOH þ H2 SO4 →Na2 SO4 þ 2H2 O
treatment temperature plays a major role on the effective chemical de-
mineralization of coal. Jorjani et al. [35] utilized microwave irradiation
technique for the subsequent demineralization of coal with HF and
3.1.3. Caustic soda regeneration
HNO3 leaching. They treated different coals with the particle size of
Liquor from the caustic digestion is treated with Ca(OH)2 in order to
− 75 μm with 3.5 M HF solution at different temperatures of 25, 35,
regenerate caustic soda and this precipitates the silica dissolved within
45, 55 and 65 °C, respectively. In those experiments, as the temperature
the digestion process as CaSiO3.
increased up to 55 °C the ash removal increased significantly, but ash re-
Na2 SiO3 þ CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ→CaSiO3 ðsÞ þ 2NaOH duction at 65 °C was not substantial (Fig. 3).
Tables 1a–1c summarize the reaction conditions for UCC production
available in the literature utilizing different leaching reagents, coal types
Sodium sulfate generated from pyrite in the coal is also recovered in
and the mineral rejection or the ash content of the parent and upgraded
this step;

Na2 SO4 þ CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ 2H2 O→2NaOH þ CaSO4  2H2 OðsÞ

Al2 ðSO4 Þ3 þ 3CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ 3H2 O→2AlðOHÞ3 ðsÞ þ 3CaSO4  H2 O ðsÞ

H2 SiO3 þ CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ→CaSiO3 ðsÞ þ 2H2 O

Na2 SO4 þ CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ 2H2 O→2NaOH þ CaSO4  2H2 O ðsÞ

Fe2 ðSO4 Þ3 þ 3CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ þ 6H2 O→2FeðOHÞ3 ðsÞ þ 3CaSO4  2H2 O ðsÞ

H2 SO4 þ CaðOHÞ2 ðsÞ→CaSO4  2H2 O ðsÞ

Fig. 3. Effect of leaching temperature on ash reduction for Tabas (T), Tabas-microwaved
3.1.4. Effect of the acid or alkali concentrations (Tm) at 900 W, 7 min, Zirab (Z), and Zirab-microwaved (Zm) at 900 W, 7 min coal
HF concentration, as reported by Jorjani et al. [35], plays an impor- samples (2.5 h, − 75 μm, 3.5 M HF) [35]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright
tant role in the removal of ash content of coals. During the treatment (2011) Elsevier).
40 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
Table 1a
Reaction conditions for UCC production by alkali and acid treatments.
Reagent
Research used/process
group used Conditions
Sharma H2O, NaOH Coal + NaOH (2–20%), refluxed 24 h,
and (2–20%) filtered, neutralized with 2% HCl, dried
Singh followed by 110 °C, 24 h
[33] HCl (2%)
Nabeel 20% NaOH Coal sample + dist. H2O + NaOH, refluxed,
et al. followed by 1–24 h, filtered, dried, 105 °C, 3 h, followed
[34] 10% H2SO4 by H2SO4 treatment, 100 °C, 1–24 h
coals. Most of the research has been carried out with bituminous and
low grade coals. In general, the ash content of the upgraded coal within
the range of 0.15 to 0.6% were achieved either by treating bituminous
coal with HF followed by HCl or HNO3. But most effective treatment
was reported to be HF followed by HNO3 and achieved ash content as
low as 0.15%. Although, Wijaya et al. [36] used low grade coal treatment
with mild acids like pyroligneous acid (1 M), citric acid (1 M) followed
by Na–EDTA (0.1 M) treatment resulted low ash content in the
upgraded coal as 0.08%. Some researcher treated coal only with HF
[42], others with NaOH followed by HCl [33], where the ash contents
in the upgraded coal was not reduced like those of HF treatment follow-
ed by HNO3 and or HCl. Based on these available literatures, we can
broadly generalize that coal treatment with HF followed by HNO3 is
one of the best process for producing UCC.
3.1.6. Effect of particle size
Coal particle size affects the degree of coal demineralization, which
is also depending on the extent of the inherent mineral matter of the
parent coal. Wijaya et al. [37] studied the effect of coal particle size on
the degree of demineralization with the fine (−53, 106–153 μm), mod-
erate (153–300 μm) and coarse (300–600 μm) coal particles, utilizing
recycled weak acids like citric acid, pyroligneous acid, and Na-EDTA.
They observed the highest mineral matter removal were from 153 to
300 μm size particles, not from the fine (− 53 μm) coal particles. This
is possibly due the agglomeration of the fine particles and floating on
the surface of the acids. As a result the leaching agent (acid) cannot
come in proper contact with the fine coal matrix. On the other hand,
least minerals removal was observed from the coarse coal particle
sizes (300–600 μm), indicating that the leaching agent has the diffusion
resistance to the courser coal particles; thus, limiting the penetration of
the leaching agent into coal particles for digestion. This result indicates
that both the fine and courser coal particles has the diffusion resistance
and thus resulting negative demineralization effect, whereas the mod-
erate particle size (153–300 μm) showed positive demineralization
effect.
Jorjani et al. [35] studied the effect of coal particle size during UCC
production by microwave irradiation as pretreatment and sequential
leaching with HF followed by HNO3. In their study, in order to evaluate
the effect of particle size (from −1000, −500, −250 and −75 μm) on
ash reduction, two types of coal samples were grinded and microwaved
(900 W for 7 min), followed by leaching at 25 °C for 2.5 h with 2 M HF. It
was found that the percentage of ash removal increase with decreasing
coal particle size from −1000 to −75 μm (Fig. 4). This was due to an in-
crease of external surface area per unit mass of coal, mass transfer is a
limiting factor in the process and HF does not have free access to the re-
active sites within the particles (in coarse particles). Grinding to smaller
particle would provide this access and HF leaching was more effective
for demineralization from smaller particles (− 75 μm). Thus, grinding
coal to a smaller particle size enhances the degree of demineralization
and achieved 54.6 to 62.0% ash removal utilizing −75 μm coal particles.
They reported that microwave irradiation pretreatment has a posi-
tive effect on demineralization with HF, this was more remarked on
coarser size particles. It has been suggested that pretreatment of coal
Mineral
rejection
Coal type/mineral matter (wt%) Remarks
Low grade Talcher coal 75% Development of alkali-acid assisted leaching technique for
(ash 17%) demineralization of coal by removing the toxic minerals
(including pyrites) under mild temperature and ambient
pressure conditions. The chemicals used are recoverable.
Topa coal (ash 33.60%) and 75–80% Concentration of NaOH and H2SO4 can be reduced to 1% by
low-grade coals (ash 43%), utilizing step-wise alkali acid treatment.
(−60 to +120 μm)
with microwave irradiation can cause phase changes and expansion,
building internal pressures in coal matrix, weakening the structure
and creating fractures [43]. In Jorjani et al.'s [35] study as particle sizes
decreased to −75 μm, the effect of microwave irradiation decreased be-
cause the leaching agent had sufficient accessibility to the mineral
phases already. In another word, the weakening effect of microwave ir-
radiation is less dominant in fine particles.
Table 1a, summarizes the reaction conditions for UCC production by
alkali and acid as leaching reagents. It is found that aqueous NaOH treat-
ment followed by dilute HCl or H2SO4 treatment of coal for digesting
mineral matter present in the coal is effective to a certain extent to pro-
duce clean coal, but not suitable for producing UCC to be used in premi-
um purposes. Table 1b, summarizes the reaction conditions for UCC
production by inorganic acid treatments. As reveled by these literatures
aqueous HF treatment alone is capable of producing clean coal by re-
moving ~ 95% of the minerals from finer (b 40 μm) and coursers
(b1000 μm) coal particles but does not meet the UCC criteria.
HF treatment followed by dilute HCl treatment resulted UCC with
very low ash content (b1.0%). Even better results were obtained upon
HF treatment followed by dilute HNO3 treatment and obtained UCC
with even lower ash content (0.2–0.69%). These results indicate that
the later procedure is very effective for producing UCC. Table 1c, sum-
marizes the reaction conditions for UCC production by organic acid
treatment. It is evident from the results summarized in Table 1c, that
weaker organic acids like pyroligneous and citric acid treatment follow-
ed by dilute EDTA treatment of Victorian brown coals produces UCC
with reasonably low ash content (0.08–3.4%). In general, Victorian
brown coals have very larger amount of clay and low ash forming con-
stituents. Therefore, coal containing low ash forming constitutes are
suitable for producing UCC by weaker organic acid treatment.
3.1.7. Effect of coal properties
Coal properties have an important role in removing minerals from
coal matrix. These minerals are present on the surface or in the core of
the coal and/or bonded with the coal molecule. It is necessary to know
the proximate, ultimate analysis and mineral composition of a particular
coal to understand its properties. Most of the available literatures have
presented only proximate and ultimate analysis of coal, which is provid-
ing a general idea of the overall coal but not the composition of ash
forming mineral matter in coal and their fate during UCC production.
Based on the available literature data as shown in Tables 1a–1c, only
few research groups utilized high ash (17–43%) containing low grade
coal for demineralization and most of the studies are based on the bitu-
minous coal, ash content ranging from 5 to 10.36%, and very effective
demineralization occurred during UCC production from these coals. Vic-
torian brown coals usually contains NaCl and very low mineral matters
(b4%). Effective demineralization of these coals with weaker acids [37]
produces UCC with very low ash. Therefore, it is very important to de-
termine the nature of minerals and ash composition either by the com-
bination of X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) and atomic absorption (AA)
techniques or inductive couple plasma- mass spectrometers (ICP-MS)
analysis or petrographic analysis to find out the effect of coal properties
on demineralization.
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56 41

Table 1b
Reaction conditions for UCC production only by inorganic acid treatment.

Reagent used/process UCC ash content

Research group used Conditions Coal type/mineral matter (wt%) Remarks

Steel et al. [26] HF (1–14 M) followed Low Temperature Asher (LTA) at Australian Black Coal (bituminous) b1% Mg and Ca present in the
by HCl (1–11.5 M) 320–370 °C, 5 days (b1 mm), ash (13.4–14.1%) clay compounds do not
HF, 65 °C, 3 h followed by HCl, 20, completely dissolve in HCl.
70 and 100 °C, 3 h Thus, this is not considered
a viable option for the
complete removal of Ca and
Mg for producing UCC.
Steel et al. [27] HF (aq. 50 wt%) 3 h stirring at 65 °C Australian Black Coal (bituminous) NAa HF reacted preferentially with
followed by HCl aluminosilicates in coal.
(36 wt%) The fluoride precipitates are
dependent on the free
fluoride ion concentration
and can be suppressed by
manipulating the ionic
equilibria in solution.
Steel et al. [11] HF (0–7 M) followed by 3 h stirring at 65 °C UK bituminous coal (b500 μm), ash 0.6% HF does not react with
HNO3 (0–1.6 M) 7.9% pyrites, whereas HNO3 alone
reacts with pyrites above 1 M
HNO3 concentration
Steel et al. [42] HF (1–1.75 M) 3 h stirring at 20 °C Australian bituminous coal (Fine: b40 Mineral Coal's carbonaceous matrix
and coarse: b1000 μm) rejection N95% has the most profound
effect on the dissolution of
Ti and only way to extract Ti
is to crush the coal to a finer
particle size.
Steel and Patrick [12] HF (1.17 M) followed by 3 h stirring at 65 °C UK bituminous coal (b62 μm), ash 5% 0.2% HNO3 reacts simultaneously
HNO3(0–1.58 M) with pyrite and
carbonaceous matrix of the
coal.
Rubiera et al. [13] 25% HF, 60 °C, 8 h HF, 60 °C, 8 h High volatile bituminous coal 0.3% Demineralized coal
followed by 25% HNO3, HNO3, 60 °C 16 h, (1–2 mm), ash 6% combustion showed
16 h, 60 °C decrease in SO2 emission
and HNO3 treated coal
increased NO emissions.
Steel and Patrick [32] HF (2.42 M) followed by HF, 3 h, 65 °C followed by Al(NO3)3 UK, high volatile bituminous coal Selective Selective separation
Al(NO3)3·9H2O(1.28 M) 24 h, 80 °C (b62 μm) separation of technique for Si(IV) and
65% Si(IV) Al(III) from aluminosilicates.
Hence, this technique is
suitable for mineral
processing. HF (N90%),
Al(NO3)3 and HNO3 (N95%)
are regenerated from the
process.
Kizgut et al. [20] HF (2 M) followed by Stirred @RT 3 h, HF, 70 °C, filtered, Turkish, Australian and Polish coals 0.15–0.41% Calorific value of the coal
HNO3 (2 M) treatment dried, 80 °C overnight, HNO3 (−74 μm), ash (5.97–8.27%) samples decreased possibly
treatment due to the oxidation and
nitrification effect of HNO3.
Jorjani et al. [35] HF (0.5–3.5 M) followed Microwave irradiation (900 W, Iran's Zirab (ash 8.31%) and Tabas Zirab (0.69%) HF leaching efficiency was
by HNO3(1.4 M), 65 °C 7 min) Coal (ash 10.36%), (b75, b250, b500 and Tabas influenced by the particle
& b1000 μm), Iran (0.39%) Coal size reduction but the
microwave irradiation was
more effective for courser
coal particles.
a
NA: data not available.

3.2. Challenges in demineralization of coal to produce UCC
Coal contains alkali, alkaline earth and trace metals. Most of these
metals during combustion pose serious problems within the facility
and in the environment once are released. So it is beneficial to remove
these metals from coal matrix during UCC and AFC production. Howev-
er, removing these from the coal matrix is challenging. The main chal-
lenges of the direct use of coal are release of ash forming minerals and
the related problems, like slagging, fouling in the combustion chamber
and emissions of toxic particulate matter, trace metals, NOx, SO2 etc. Re-
moval of surface bound minerals or salts (like, NaCl, KCl or CaCl2 etc.) is
possible by washing or rinsing with water but removal of organically
bound metals are still a challenge. Since this process requires washing
of coal with fresh water and aqueous NaOH, it is very important to
treat the contaminated water and regeneration of chemicals used in
the process, which would make the overall process economic and cost
effective. In addition, the mechanism of role of NaOH in coal cleaning
and its reactivity in the coal matrix is not properly understood, especial-
ly with the inorganic minerals.
Wijaya and Zhang [68] presented a review on mode of occurrences
of inorganic elements and organically bonded metals in coal matrix dur-
ing coal demineralization. Their paper addresses the fundamental as-
pects and practical feasibilities related to removal of chemically
bonded metals in coal matrix during coal upgrading process. They
have emphasized on the mode of occurrences of inorganic elements
and organically bonded metals in coal matrix and investigated the
metals those are difficult to remove during UCC or HPC production pro-
cess. The metals extracted by polar solvents during UCC production
42 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56

possess complex structures, which are mostly acid-insoluble and are
also difficult to remove through ion-exchange column. However, there
have been studies in this area for low-rank Victorian coal having less
ash and high moisture content. Metals in low rank coal are mainly asso-
ciated with organic matrix, in the form of organo-metal complex. Ethyl-
enediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), a chelating agent, has been used as
an efficient agent to remove metals including Fe bound with the organic
constituents in coal matrix.
Grinding of coal is one of the ways to maximize the rate of removal
of mineral matter to a certain extent. However, this process is associated
with high energy and cost and thus, it's been hard to realize. The dem-
onstration of these results in a scale-up project is still among few chal-
lenges to meet. Therefore, the knowledge of these key aspects is
essential in order to understand the process involved and imply those
results for commercialization.
4. Extraction of organic matters to produce ash-free coal (AFC)
Even though the UCC contains around 0.1–1.0% of ash it cannot be
directly fired in the gas turbines. Other concerns are associated with
the corrosiveness and biodegradability of strong acids and alkali re-
agents used during UCC production and consequently the disposal of
waste solutions. The second process uses organic solvents to dissolve or-
ganic matter and precipitating the AFC also known as hyper-coal (HPC)
[44–46]. In this paper both of these are commonly termed as AFC. Fig. 1
shows the schematic diagram of preparation of AFC by solvent extrac-
tion (path C). Solvent extraction of coal using organic solvents can pro-
duce AFC that has significantly much lower ash content level (as low as
200 ppm) than UCC. In addition, this process helps to remove alkali and
heavy metals and almost all inorganic sulfurs.
AFC research and process development have been carried out since
1999. Currently, the New Energy and Industrial Technology Develop-
ment Organization (NEDO), Japan, is developing methods for using
AFC in power generation system. Researchers have found that solvent
extraction of raw coal utilizing suitable organic solvents can provide
AFC with the following major features [47]:
• Ash content decreases to ~200 ppm or less.
• Alkali metals concentration (Na, K) decreases to ~0.5 ppm.
• Calorific value increases by ~10–20% compared to raw coal.
• Inorganic sulfur is almost zero.
• Heavy metals content significantly decreases to 1/100 or less.
• Excellent gasification feedstock.
• It has excellent ignitability and combustion properties.
• It exhibits good thermal plasticity.
Several potential promising technologies for upgrading coals are at
different levels of development: experimental, demonstration and an
industrial scale (KOBE Steel Ltd., Japan) [48]. Fig. 5 shows the schematic
diagram of AFC/HPC process diagram, operating under the brand name
KOBELCO, developed in 1999. This 0.1 t/day pilot plant is in operation at
Takasago, Japan and 10 t/day pilot plant is under construction [49]. Kobe
Steel has been working on upgrading low rank coal with upgraded
brown coal (UBC) process to efficiently remove the water contained in
low rank coal in heated light oil [50]. The project is subsidized by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and Japan Coal Energy
Center (JCOAL). A plant (production base capacity, 600 t/day) was con-
structed in Indonesia and has been running to demonstrate a process
called the UBC process.
Even though, having a kind of demonstration plants, none of these
technologies are commercially available and many aspects of the tech-
nologies are still in research and developmental stage. A new cost-effec-
tive and efficient approaches and technologies are therefore essential,
especially to upgrade low-rank lignite and sub-bituminous coals. One
of such approaches could be the production of AFC.
4.1. Effect of solvents
Solvents have the capability of relaxing the interactions among the
molecules constituting the organic portion of the coal. It also depends
on the polarity of the solvents; low polar or non-polar will exhibit less
and polar solvents have the high relaxing capability. As for example,
dimethylformamide (DMF) and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP) has
the coal dissolving capability to a higher extent and thus results the
higher extraction yields [51].
Extensive research is being carried out by several research groups
(summarized in Tables 2a–2d) for the production of AFC suitable for
new power generation technologies. Solvent extraction have been car-
ried out using different type of solvents such as polar, non-polar and
mixed. Issues like recycling of the solvent, filtration condition, optimum
extraction conditions and universal solvent for coals of different origin
and good thermal stability need to be examined to minimize the cost
of AFC production process.
4.1.1. Extraction of coal by polar solvents
Polar solvents are one of the best solvents those have the capability
of dissolving polar (O, N and S containing organic components) in the
coal matrix. Renganathan et al. [44] investigated N-methylpyrrolidone
(NMP)'s ability to reduce the ash and pyritic sulfur content of coal.
They found that the ash content of various bituminous coals could be re-
duced to as low as 0.1% by simple extraction with NMP using a mild op-
erating condition at 202 °C and atmospheric pressure.
Kim et al. [52] conducted a study for the purpose of producing low
ash coal from low rank coals, such as lignite and sub-bituminous
through extraction using polar solvent, NMP and compared the extrac-
tion yield with bituminous coal. Extraction experiments were done in
the temperature range of 200–430 °C, initial applied pressure of 1–
20 bar and extraction time of 0.5–2 h using coal to solvent ratio of

Table 1c
Reaction conditions for UCC production by organic acid treatment.

Reagent UCC ash

Research used/process content
group used Conditions Coal type/mineral matter (wt%) Remarks

Wijaya Pyroligneous acid Coal + pyroligneous acid (1 M), Two Victorian Brown coals Coal A Cheap and weaker acids like pyroligneous acid
et al. (1 M), citric acid citric acid (1 M) + Na–EDTA (0.1 M), (106–150 μm), ash (1.65 and 2.35%) (0.08%) and citric acid has been successfully utilized for
[36] (1 M) and Na– stirred @RT 3 h, pure water washing, and Coal generation of UCC.
EDTA (0.1 M) dried @ 115 °C, 2 h B (1.5%) Substantial reduction of sulfur and chlorine
contents of UCC.
Wijaya Pyroligneous acid High temperature and high pressure Two Victorian Brown coals, Coal A, ash Coal A Potential use of waste weak acids for brown coal
et al. (1 M), citric acid leaching, autoclave reactor at 65, (1.9–2.37) and coal B, ash (2.22–3.4%), (0.12%) leaching to generate UCC. Both coarse and fine
[37] (1 M) and Na– 120, and 200 °C were conducted Four different particle sizes, b53, and Coal sizes negatively affect coal demineralization by
EDTA (0.1 M) with continuous stirring. 106–153, 153–300, and 300–600 B (1.07%) increasing the intra-particle diffusion resistance.
The degree of demineralization of brown coal
(rich in organically bound metals) was
independent of temperature.
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
Fig. 4. Effect of coal particle size on ash reduction for Tabas (T), Tabas-microwaved (Tm) at
900 W, 7 min, Zirab (Z), and Zirab-microwaved (Zm) at 900 W, 7 min coal samples (2.5 h,
25 °C, 2 M HF), [35]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2011) Elsevier).
1:10. The extraction yield increased with the increase of extraction tem-
perature, and the ash content of extracted coal decreased below 0.4% at
400 °C from the raw coal samples that have the ash contents of 4–6%.
Experimental results showed increase in fixed carbon and calorific
value, and decrease in H/C and O/C ratio.
Although, NMP showed high [48] extraction rate (~70% daf), as one
of the strongest solvents to extract coals from various rank coals at
350 °C, a large amount of NMP was lost due to a strong linkage with
coal molecules in every cases [53]. This is possibly due to the presence
of the carbonyl functional groups at the C-2 in NMP, which reacts with
the coal particles.
Ouchi et al. [54] studied thermal extraction of a Japanese bituminous
coal (81.2%, 350 °C) in an autoclave under 1 MPa of nitrogen with pyri-
dine and quinoline at 200–400 °C. They reported an extraction yield of
50% at 400 °C with pyridine; whereas, quinoline produced similar ex-
traction yield at 300 °C. The maximum yield achieved was about
80 wt% with quinoline at 350 °C. This result was interpreted as being
due to the intimate sealing of extractable material in the network mac-
romolecular structure or in the larger molecules. It was confirmed that
the pyridine extracts are not thermal decomposition products, but the
true extracts.
The extraction yield (for Illinois No. 6 coal) gradually increased over
200 °C, and a significant increase in extraction yield was observed from
350 to 360 °C. In a separate investigation, same research group [46] per-
formed production of AFC with several organic solvents such as crude
methylnaphthalene oil (CMNO), LCO under hot filtration at 360 °C
using a flow-type extractor. They got much higher extraction yield
(N80 wt%) using CMNO than LCO, which was previously reported as a
useful solvent for AFC production. It is interpreted that high extraction
yield obtained was due to the solvent-induced relaxation of coal aggre-
gates by the nitrogen-containing compounds, in addition to the ther-
mal-induced relaxation.
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of AFC/HPC process in Kobe Steel Ltd. Redrawn after [49].
43
The effect of addition of some polar compounds into non-polar ex-
traction solvent on the extraction yield was also investigated. The addi-
tion led to an increase in the extraction yield, while, the quantities of
solvent remained in the extract and residue increased. The extraction
yield did not reach the same level as the CMNO, even when the nitrogen
content in the mixture of solvent/additives was almost identical to that
in those solvents.
Recently, Mahat et al. [55] treated sub-bituminous and bituminous
coals with commonly used polar solvents like Chloroform, Dichloro-
methane (DCM) and Ethyl acetate (EA) under pressurized vessel system
utilizing microwave radiation heating. They also compared the perfor-
mance of the pressure-vessel techniques in terms of extraction efficien-
cy to that of Soxhlet extraction and found that overall 30–40% efficiency
enhancement. Although the extraction yield reported was very low
(b 8%) compared with the other high boiling solvents like LCO, CMNO
[46]. In addition to the enhancement of the efficiency in microwave ir-
radiation method, it also allows substantial reduction of solvent and
sample used by a factor of 25 compared with the Soxhlet method.
4.1.2. Extraction of coal by non-polar solvents
Non-polar solvents have the capability of dissolving mainly non-
polar organic components of the coal. A team of Japanese researchers
[56], studied extraction of Argonne premium coals and an Australian
brown coal in a flowing stream of non-polar solvents such as tetralin
and 1-methylnaphthalene (1-MN) at 200–400 °C and 10 MPa pressure,
where they observed that the bituminous coals has negligible decompo-
sition below 350 °C and thus obtained lower yields, whereas the extrac-
tion yield reached 65–80% above 350 °C. Okuyama et al. [48] reported
that the use of non-polar two-ring aromatic solvent in some bituminous
coal can achieve an extraction yield of almost 70% (daf); however, the
yield was below 60% in case of sub-bituminous coal. They also reported
a comprehensive techno economic analysis and estimated that the cal-
orie based cost of Hyper-coal would be competitive to a general coal
price including its ash disposal cost in Japan.
In order to obtain ash-less coal in a high yield, solvent extractions
with various organic solvents such as tetralin, 1-MN,
dimethylnaphthalene (DMN) and light cycle oil (LCO) at 200–380 °C
were carried out using batch type extractor by Yoshida et al. [45] for var-
ious ranks of coals under nitrogen atmosphere. Subsequent solid/solu-
tion separation was done at room temperature. They succeeded in
producing ash-less coal with b0.1% ash content for seven out of nine
coals. Extraction yields with DMN at 360 °C were 24–54% regardless of
coal rank. LCO was found to be a useful solvent, since it gave similar ex-
traction yields (~40%) to three other solvents.
Okuyama et al. [48] investigated 20 different coals, mainly bitumi-
nous, belonging to Australian, Indonesian, United States and Chinese or-
igin and extracted with a non-hydrogen donor solvent, 1-MN at 360 °C.
The extraction yields were within the range 30–72% (shown in Fig. 6)
44 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56

Table 2a
Reaction conditions for AFC production by polar solvents.

Research
group Solvent used Conditions Coal type Yield (%) Ash content (%) Remarks

Renganathan NMP (10:1 202 °C, 1 atm H.V. bituminous coals, 74% (maf) b0.1–0.7% Non-destructive isolation of organic materials from
et al. [44] solvent to coal) b74 μm, ash max bituminous coal and NMP. Recoveries were high (97%) and
(6.2–26.4%) yield did not contain any pyritic sulfur.
Ouchi et al. Quinoline, 200–400 °C, 1 MPa, Japanese bituminous 50–90% at NAa Pyridine extraction yields was ~50% at 400 °C, while
[54] pyridine N2 coal b149 μm, ash 350–400 °C quinolone extract was found ~90% even at lower
(7.6–9.7%) temperature (350 °C). Thermal decomposition and
polymerization played a role at higher temperature.
Miura et al. DMF 25 °C Argonne premium, ash 58–77% for 0.8% The highly polar solvent DMF has the capability of dissolving
[56] (4.8–19.8%) bituminous organic components from coal matrix or from the deposit
coals, 25 °C even at room temperature.
Kim et al. NMP (10:1 200–430 °C, Sub-bituminous coal, ~90% 0.4% The extraction yield increased with the increase of
[52] solvent to coal) 1-20 bar (0.5-2 h) b75 μm, ash (4–6%) temperature. The initial applied pressure showed slight
effect on the extraction yield without any significant ash
reduction.
Makgato et NMP, DMF RT, stirred South African 27.5–82% 0.7–1.6% Coal dissolves in DMF and NMP to a limited extent. Addition
al. [51] NaOH, tBuONa, (60 rpm), 24 h, N2, meta-bituminous of a strong base increased the degree of coal dissolution and
hydrated Na2S filtered, vacuum Tshikondeni coal, reached up to 90%. Addition of Na2S provided high purity
(60–62%) dried at 60 °C b150 μm, ash (9.4%) coal extract (ash content 0.7%), but with the cost of
additional reagent and lower coal recovery.
Kolak and DCM, CS2, SCCO2 DCM (40 °C) Bituminous coal, 40–60% NAa CS2 and DCM extraction yields were very similar, whereas,
Burruss CS2 (46 °C) 125–250 μm, ash SCCO2 produced lower extraction yield.
[73] CO2 (40 °C), (4.01–5.52%)
100 bar
Samanta and Tetrahydrofuran THF (66 °C), Indian coal, average NAa Ash rejection; THF has the better mineral matter reduction capability than
Mondal (THF), 1, 1,4-dioxane particles, 126 (A), 258 A (23.16%) that of 1, 4 dioxane and diethyl ether. Finer coal particles has
[74] 4-dioxane (101 °C), diethyl (B) and 403 (C) μm B (15.26%) a significant effect on reduction of mineral matters and
diethyl ether ether (35 °C) C (12.42%) yields more soluble compounds.
a
NA: data not available.

and these yields were largely depending on the characteristics of the
raw coals. In general, it was observed that lower moisture containing
(0.7%) Upper Freeport (UPF) coal produced higher extraction yield
(~ 72%). Similar trend was also found in case of Guregory (GUR),
Guregory-B (GUR-B), Oaky creek (OKC), Stratford (STF), Enshu
(Yanzhou) (EN), Pittsburgh (PIT) and Kestrel (KST) coals and yields
were within the range of 52 to 68%. Only exception was Yakut 9 (YK9)
coal, although it contains only 2.1% moisture, it produced low yield
(30%). High moisture (17.2%) and high ash (24.9%) containing coal
Longkou (LK) produced moderate yield of ~38%.
Okuyama et al. [48] also investigated the effect of hydrogen donor
solvent (tetralin) extraction yield capability comparing with 1-MN
(Fig. 7). They treated STF coal with 1-MN and tetralin at different
temperatures ranging from 300 to 400 °C, and observed no significant
difference in extraction yields at lower temperatures (b320 °C) but ex-
traction yields increased rapidly above 340 °C with the use of tetralin.
This is possibly due to the release of transferable hydrogen in tetralin
at these temperatures (≥340 °C). This result indicates that transfer of
hydrogen from solvent to coal increases the extraction yields. In other
word, by the use of tetralin, soluble coal molecules are not only extract-
ed by the solvent from coal structures but also by thermal decomposi-
tion of the coal structure. As a result, small molecules are generating
and stabilizing by accepting hydrogen, generated from the reaction sys-
tem or from the hydrogen donor solvents. Therefore, intermolecular hy-
drogen transfer is playing an important role for enhancing the
extraction rate or the extraction yield.

Table 2b
Reaction conditions for AFC production by non-polar solvents.

Research Solvent
group used Conditions Coal type Yield (%) Ash (%) Remarks

Miura et al. Tetralin, 200–400 °C, Argonne premium and 65–80% for 0–0.3% The extraction yields of lower rank coals were not high compared to
[56] 1-MN 10 MPa Australian brown coal, ash bituminous coals at bituminous coals. This technique is useful to extract organic
(1.5–19.8%) 350 °C molecules without decomposition of coal.
Yoshida et Tetralin, 200–380 °C, 16 coal samples with wide DMN (21–54%), LCO b0.1% About 40% extraction yield was obtained from LCO and reported be a
al. [45] 1-MN, 0.4 MPa, 1 h variety of carbon content, (15.0–38.9%), tetralin cost-effective industrial solvent for coal extraction.
DMN, ash (3.8–19.6%) (24.5–26.1%)
LCO
Okuyama et 1-MN, 360–380 °C Bituminous coals 70% (daf) for 0.01–0.05% Development of a promising de-ashing technology for AFC
al. [48] Tetralin, 0.1 MPa, N2 b250 μm, ash (4.8–24.9%) bituminous coal production in a cost-effective manner.
1-MN is recyclable and has a good affinity to coal as well as good
thermal stability.
Takanohashi 1-MN 300–420 °C, Bituminous coal, 66.7% (daf) at 360 °C 0.03–1.0% The distribution of carbon type in HyperCoals obtained from
et al. [58] 1 MPa, 1 h b150 μm, ash (3.2–15.1%) extraction below 360 °C was similar to their parent coals.
HyperCoals showed high thermo plasticity during heating, at
temperature as low as 150 °C. NMR results revealed that the ratio of
aromatic carbon increased with increasing extraction temperature.
Lee et al. 1-MN 370 °C, Samhwa brown coal, NAa 0.19% Evaluated the performance of AFC, raw coal, active carbon, carbon
[75] 30 bar b74 μm, ash (2.4%) black and graphite as fuel for DCFC. The power density of AFC was
strongly temperature-dependent and in general decreased over
time.
a
NA: data not available.
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56 45

Table 2c
Reaction conditions for AFC production by mixed solvents.

Research
group Solvent used Conditions Coal type Yield (%) Ash (%) Remarks

Iino et al. CS2/NMP (1:1) Room Bituminous coals 30–66% (daf) b0.5% ~60% yield was obtained from bituminous coal at room
[60] Temperature, b250 μm and Argonne temperature. Anthracite, sub-bituminous and lignite coals
1 atm coal b149 μm, ash did not give high yields.
(2.5–31.7%)
Sun et al. SCCO2/NMP (1:1) scCO2/NMP and 24 Chinese coals, lignite 3.30–27.96% NAa The scCO2/NMP mixed solvent extraction yields from low
[76] CS2/NMP, 5 °C, to anthracite, b180 μm, rank coals were higher than that of CS2/NMP and both of
18 h stirring at ash (4.89–36.52) these mixtures have much higher yield than that of pure
revs min−1 NMP extraction. Therefore, scCO2 can be considered as a
proper solvent to replace CS2.
Sonmez NMP, NMP/EDA Microwave Turkish coal (Cayırhan, Thermal 0.11–1.1% NMP/EDA and NMP/tetralin mixed solvents were found to
and (17:1), NMP/Tetralin irradiation, Soma and Tuncbilek), (13.0–33.8%) be promising for coal extraction by microwave irradiation,
Giray (9:1) 180–202 °C b250 μm, ash Microwave although, NMP/EDA mixed solvent produced slightly
[77] (22.1–27.2%) (12.2–31.2%) higher thermal extraction yield.
Kashimura Polar materials 360 °C and 1 MPa, Sub-bituminous coal, 73% (daf) NAa Polar materials were successfully concentrated from a
et al. fractionated from 1h b150 μm, ash 8.8% (Methanol-water cost-effective industrial solvent, CMNO, the extraction
[61] CMNO using HCl and soluble fraction of yields of which were 20–30% higher than that of original
CH3OH-water CMNO) CMNO. A small amount of methanol addition to
N-containing polar solvent significantly increased the
thermal extraction yield at 360 °C.
a
Sakimoto 1-MN, Indole (0, 10, 20 Semi-batch Argonne Premium and ~71% NA The extraction yield increased linearly with the increase
et al. mass% to 1-MN) reactor, Mulia coals, b150 μm, of Indole concentration. Higher extraction yield from
[63] N2(1 MPa), 360 °C ash (1.7–15.5%) low-rank coals were achieved with high oxygen content;
polar solvent is recommended for high oxygen (≥8.2%)
coal.
a
NA: data not available.

In case of non-hydrogen donor solvent 1-MN, the extraction yield in-
creased rapidly until 350 °C, and then decreased gradually with the in-
crease of temperature. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact
that 1-MN could not transfer hydrogen to increase the extraction rate.
On the other hand, at this temperature range (N350–500 °C), coal mol-
ecule may undergo rapid thermal decomposition and generates free
radicals, which may combine with each other or with large stable mol-
ecules [57] via cross-linking to produce residual coal. They also observed
that the H/C atomic ratio of coal liquid extracted by 1-MN rapidly de-
creased. This result indicates that there was gradual condensation of re-
sidual coal; this phenomenon may inhibit the release of the solvent-
soluble coal molecules from the cross-linking coal matrix.
Takanohashi et al. [58] undertook the characterization (structural
and thermal analysis) of ash-less coal produced by thermal extraction
of various ranks coals with 1-MN at temperatures from 300 to 420 °C.
It was observed that ash-less coal had many light components that
volatize and decompose easily and has high thermal reactivity. All the
ash-less coals showed high thermo plasticity during heating near
150 °C. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements showed
that the ratio of aromatic carbon increased with increasing extraction
temperature, indicating that some modification reactions occurred.
Recently, Anon [59] has used liquid or supercritical CO2 (scCO2) to
produce AFC. They observed that AFC from liquid CO2 extraction has a
high calorific value and only negligible amounts of ash. Moreover, it
showed excellent thermal plasticity properties even though the raw
coal did not show such behavior.
4.1.3. Mixed solvents
To overcome the issues related with the use of NMP alone at higher
temperatures (≥ 350 °C) (discussed in Section 4.1), researchers have

Table 2d
Reaction conditions for AFC production by miscellaneous solvents.

Research
group Solvent used Conditions Coal type Yield (%) Ash (%) Remarks

Yoshida 1-MN, DMN, LCO, 200–360 °C, 1 MPa Argonne Premium coals, CMNO CMNO High extraction yields of HyperCoal with several
et al. CMNO b150 μm, ash (4.4–15.0%) (74.6–80.7%), (0.20–0.3%), organic solvents under hot filtration at 360 °C using a
[46] LCO LCO (0–0.1%), flow-type reactor.
(44.0–55.8%), DMN The high extraction yield with CMNO might be due to
DMN (0.7–2.3%) the solvent-induced relaxation of coal matrix by
(62.3–74.0%) N-containing compounds.
Andrews Refinery oil and Solvent/coal (2:1), Bituminous coals, Blue 76–91% 0.18–0.5% A small micro-reactor based experimental set-up was
et al. anthracene oil sand bath, Gem, Davis, Springfield used in sand bath to assess the dissolution of coals in
[69] 450–550 °C, and Pittsburg, b75 μm process solvents to produce low ash containing coking
1.4 MPa (200 psi), ash (1.2–19%) coal with reasonably high conversion yield.
1h
Vostrikov Supercritical 30 MPa, 400– Brown coal, 20–25, 48–62.8% NAa Utilization of SCW in continuous coal conversion
et al. water (SCW) and 760 °C 40–50, 75–80, system would be more effective once coal water slurry
[78] O2 200–315 μm, ash (10.1%) (CWS) is supplied as fuel for energy production
without agglomeration of coal particles.
Rahman 1-MN, 200–450 °C, 10 psi, Lignite and 78.4% 0.0–0.08% Assessing the impact of coal quality on extraction yield
et al. hydrotreated and 1h sub-bituminous coals, was difficult due to involvement of several parameters
[62] non-hydrotreated b150 μm, ash such as temperature, solvent, coal type. However,
industrial solvent (10.58–21.64%) maceral content of coals played an important role in
coal extraction. Higher vitrinite-rich coal produced
higher extraction yield.
a
NA: data not available.
46 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
Fig. 6. Comparison of the coal extraction yields at 360 °C. Okuyama et al. [48]. Note: YK9 to
UPF are coal types used in the study. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2004)
Elsevier).
tried mixing solvents. Such as, Iino et al. [60] utilized NMP and CS2 (1:1
by volume) for extracting bituminous coals at room temperature and
successively achieved extraction yield over 60%. The anthracite, sub-bi-
tuminous coals and lignite did not give high yields. They suggested that
solvent loosens the bonding of organic matters in coal. The synergistic
effect, i.e. the large increase in yield and rate for the mixed solvent com-
pared with those for CS2 and NMP alone has been explained by increas-
ing solubility and diffusibility of the extracts and increasing swelling of
the coals, in the mixed solvent. Okuyama et al. [48,53] also found that
mixed solvents of CS2 with quinoline, pyridine and Tetrahydrofuran
(THF) gave lower extraction yields than the CS2-NMP mixed solvent.
Kashimura et al. [61] reported ash-free coal production from low-
rank coals, such as sub-bituminous coal by extraction with a polar sol-
vent concentrated from a polar industrial solvent, CMNO at tempera-
tures around 360 °C. The methanol-water soluble fraction of CMNO
(MW-S) extracted 73% (daf) of Wyodak Anderson sub-bituminous
coal at 360 °C, while that obtained using aqueous HCl (AC-S) extracted
63%. These extraction yields were much higher than those with CMNO
(43%), indicating that fractionation concentrated the materials that
Fig. 7. Comparison of coal extraction performance between 1-MN and tetralin (STF coal)
[48] (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2004) Elsevier).
dissolve the constituents of coal. It has been observed that MW-S
contained more indole than AC-S. The results of additional tests sug-
gested that indole has a greater ability to extract coal constituents
than quinoline. They also observed that the addition of 5% methanol
to a mixture of 1-methylnaphthalene, indole, and quinoline (30/20/
50%) increased the extraction yield from 58 to 69%, which was close to
the yield of MW-S (73%). Therefore, it has been concluded that the
high extraction yield of MW-S can be explained by not only the compo-
sition of the nitrogen-containing polar materials in MW-S but also the
presence of methanol.
Rahman et al. [62], used hydrotreated coal tar distillate, also referred
as industrial solvent for the extraction of low grade Canadian coal for
the production AFC. GC–MS of industrial solvents confirms the presence
of mixed poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), mainly naphthalene and
anthracene derivatives, including some heterocyclic compounds. The
maximum yield of AFC utilizing the industrial solvent was 73% (daf,
based on the produced AFC) and 78.4% (daf, based on unconverted re-
sidual coal) at 400 °C.
Sakimoto et al. [63], investigated the effect of addition of polar com-
ponent (Indole) to nonpolar solvent (1-MN) and found that the extrac-
tion yield increased linearly with the increase of Indole concentration
from 0 to 20% (mass of 1-MN). They also recommended that polar sol-
vent is necessary for achieving the higher extraction yields from low-
rank coals with the high oxygen content (≥8.2%).
Painter et al. [64], observed that use of ionic liquid (1-butyl-3-
methylimidazolium chloride) as co-solvent with NMP and Pyridine, sig-
nificantly enhances the extraction yields, although Upper Freeport coal
produced slightly lower yield (29.2%) than that of pyridine alone (35%).
Ionic liquids have the capability of solubilizing, disintegrating and dis-
persing certain fine coal particles to a remarked extent. Coals possess in-
consistent behavior and not most coals have densely cross-linked
networks, where a portion of soluble material remains trapped in coal
matrix, even upon swelling in good solvents, which fracture and only
partially fragment coals at ambient temperatures and allowing dissolu-
tion of trapped materials. It is also observed that the degree of swelling
and the soluble materials recovery from low rank coals depends on the
extent of covalent cross-linking, formation of salt bridges and π-cation
interactions in the coal matrix [65–67].
Tables 2a–2d summarize the reaction conditions, yield and ash con-
tent in the upgraded AFC production by different research groups. Even
though, the ash content of the upgraded coal should be b0.1% to be con-
sidered as AFC for application in IGCC power plant Wijaya and Zhang
[68], many researchers are producing AFC with higher ash content with-
in the range of 0 to 2.3%. Among the literatures cited in Tables 2a–2d
only three of them [45,48,62] are meeting the criteria for utilizing AFC
in IGCC.
As seen in Tables 2a–2d, most of the experiments have been done in
higher temperature N350 °C. In general extraction yield has been found
higher at high temperature. As for example, Andrews et al. [69] reported
extraction yield as high as 91% from bituminous coal with refinery oil
and anthracene oil at 450–550 °C, 1.4 MPa (200 psi). However, in
other study even at room temperature the extraction yield reached to
82% utilizing NMP, DMF NaOH, tBuONa, hydrated Na2S [51].
In Tables 2a–2d we have summarized the extraction yield and the
operating conditions that are available in the literature. It is difficult to
generalize and correlate the extraction yield to the operating conditions
of the process from those bulky data, considering that these need stud-
ies in controlled conditions. Nevertheless, in order to explain/explore
the effect of various parameters on the extraction yield we have de-
scribed the effect of each operating conditions in Sections 4.1 to 4.5.
It is evident from Table 2a that the polar solvent, NMP, is providing
N70% yield even at lower extraction temperature (202 °C), extraction
yield is reaching ~90% at higher temperature (N350 °C) with production
of AFC with very low ash content. Other polar solvents like Pyridine and
Quinoline are also reasonably good solvent for producing AFC with good
yields at higher temperatures (N 350 °C). Polar solvents (DCM, CS2 and
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
SCCO2) with low boiling point have also been used for the extraction of
organic components from coal but the yield is comparatively low.
Polar solvent with high boiling point, DMF, is suitable for extracting
small molecular weight compounds from the deposit even at 25 °C,
those could not be extracted by tetralin at 350 °C [56].
Table 2b, summarizes the reaction conditions of AFC with non-polar
solvents like Tetralin, 1-MN, DMN and LCO. Among these solvents 2-
ring aromatic solvents Tetralin and 1-MN found to be better for produc-
ing AFC with reasonably good yields at higher temperatures (N 350 °C),
while LCO and DMN is providing moderate yields (maximum ~ 50%).
Table 2c, represents literature data obtained by the mixture of polar
and non-polar solvents with different ratios. NMP mixed with equal vol-
ume of CS2 produced around 60% yield of AFC from bituminous coal at
room temperature, while the same solvent mixed with scCO2 and CS2
at 5 °C produced lower yields (~28%). Anthracite and lignite coal pro-
duced even lower yields. Overall decrease in the extraction yield is
probably due to the lowering the polarity of the solvent mixture and
lowering the extraction temperature from room temperature to 5 °C.
NMP found to be a good polar solvent for extraction of coal, but while
mixing with EDA or Tetralin at different ratios and extraction was car-
ried out under microwave irradiation at 180–202 °C, the yields were
reasonably low (~ 31%). Polar components extracted from CMNO by
HCl and methanol treatment was used to extract coal and found reason-
ably good yield (~ 73%) at 360 °C. Almost, a similar extraction yield
(~71%) was obtained under similar extraction conditions with the mix-
ture of non-polar solvent 1-MN and polar compound Indole. These re-
sults indicate that polar additives and higher extraction temperature
are essential to get the reasonably good extraction yields from lignite
or bituminous coals.
Table 2d, summarizes the use of miscellaneous solvents for the pro-
duction of AFC. Yoshida et al. [46] utilized 1-MN, DMN, and industrial
oils like light cycle oil (LCO) and crude methylnaphthalene oil
(CMNO) for extraction of coal at 360 °C, and found that the CMNO pro-
vided the higher extraction yields (~80%). This is probably the effect of
the polar components present in CMNO. Similarly, refinery oil, anthra-
cene oil and hydrotreated industrial oils produced excellent extraction
yields of AFC within the range of 76–91% with very low ash content in
the extracted coal. Supercritical water (SCW) and O2 have also been
used and found around ~ 60% yield at very high temperature (400–
760 °C). It is apparent from these results that industrial oils have the
very good relaxation capability of coal matrix at higher temperature
(N350 °C) under pressure and thus dissolves most of the organic
components.
4.1.4. Effect of pre-treatment with alkalis
Sharma and Singh [70] extracted Assam coal with ethylenediamine
(EDA) using a Soxhlet apparatus for 24 h at 100 °C. This stepwise extrac-
tion of coal in EDA resulted in 44% extraction yield. Aqueous alkali treat-
ment followed by solvent extraction enhanced the extractability of coal
in EDA and resulted in 50% extraction yield. Apart from EDA, they also
tried various other organic solvents in the aqueous alkali treatment of
coal, such as, tetralin, phenol, quinoline, ethanol and butanol. The ex-
traction yields were low, within the range of 13 to 25%. They also uti-
lized weaker bases like Na2CO3 and Ca(OH)2 along with NaOH in the
alkali treatment to enhance the extraction yield, but did not improve
the extractability of the coal. Non-aqueous alkali treatment of coal
using solid NaOH in different organic solvents such as phenol, tetralin
and pyridine also resulted an enhanced (14–20%) extraction yields.
These results indicate that alkaline degradation technique is a good
method for producing clean coal by stepwise extraction of coal, even
with dilute NaOH (1.5%) at 100 °C under atmospheric pressure with a
low to moderate extraction yield. Mechanism of such alkali treatment
methods for coal digestion was proposed by Camier and Siemon [71].
They proposed the two step ionization mechanism for the alkaline di-
gestion of brown coal (Fig. 8).
47
The coal particles are connected together by hydrogen bonding and
Van der Waals attractive forces into the coal matrix. As described by
Woskoboenko et al. [72], the inter-particle hydrogen bonding is attrib-
uted to the interaction of the carboxyl, hydroxyl and carbonyl functional
groups via the water in the micropores. The alkaline digestion mecha-
nism is pH dependent. At the natural pH range of 3.5 to 6.5, a portion
of the acidic protons are dissociated and develops a negative charge
on the coal particles. As a result the mutual repulsion between the neg-
atively charged particles prevents the coalescence of particles. Once coal
is treated with NaOH the ionic equilibrium of the system is interrupted
and the coal behaves like a polyprotic acid. In pH higher (range ~4–8),
carboxylic acids undergoes dissociation first then the less acidic phenols
(pH 10–14). As the coal is gradually titrated with NaOH, the negative
charges on the surface of the coal particle increase and the electrostatic
repulsion between the surfaces increase too. This results migration of
produced hydrated Na+ ions into the pores of the coal particles and for-
mation of an electrical double layer and maintains an electro-neutrality
within the pore. The electrostatic repulsion forces between the coal sur-
faces and the swelling produced by the movement of hydrated Na+ and
OH– ions into the micropores gradually pushes the surfaces apart
resulting breaking down of the chemical bonds.
4.2. Effect of temperature
Softening temperature of parent coal affects the extraction yields of
AFC. Mochida et al. [57] has shown that the softening point of a coal has
a significant effect on the extraction yield. The relation between coal
softening point and extraction yield is shown in Fig. 9. If the softening
point of coal is closer to the extraction temperature, the coal extraction
rate becomes higher, which indicates that the softening point of coal af-
fects dissolving rate of coal.
Yoshida et al. [45] also found higher correlation between the soften-
ing temperature of raw coal and the extraction yields with (a) DMN-W
and (b) LCO (Fig. 10). As shown in the figures, the negative relationship
existed between the extraction rate and the coal softening temperature
i.e. coal with lower softening temperature tended to give higher extrac-
tion yield. As explained in their paper this might be due to thermal re-
laxation of coal molecules. With lower softening temperature thermal
relaxation of coal molecule would be more remarkable and extraction
yield would be higher.
Rahman et al. [62] used Canadian coal for the production of AFC in a
0.5 L high pressure autoclave reactor in temperature ranging from 200
to 450 °C using 1-MN, with 1 h of holding time for CV coal (sub-bitumi-
nous) (Table 3). In those experiments, the extraction yield at 360 °C
with 1-MN and CV coal (sub-bituminous) was about 28.2%. Tempera-
ture below 300 °C, AFC extraction yield was low, however, the yield in-
creased with the increasing temperature (above 300 °C) and maximum
yield (30.4%) was observed at 400 °C. This might be due to the enhanced
coal–solvent interaction at elevated temperature. The solvent induced
thermal relaxation of coal molecules occurs at high temperature releas-
ing mainly small molecules and free radicals from the cross-linking coal
structure to the solvent [48]. Increasing temperature beyond 400 °C did
not increase the yield, such as at 450 °C yield decreased (13.5%), which
might be due to recombination of the free radicals [57].
4.3. Effect of initial pressure
A very little information is available in the literature on the effect of
initial pressure on the extraction yield. Kim et al. [52] investigated the
effect of initial pressure on the extraction yield and they also tried to
find a correlation between the initial applied pressure with the ash con-
tent of extracted coal and residual coal. Fig. 11, shows the variation of
extraction yield Kideko and Roto South coal with initial applied pres-
sure. They observed that once the initial pressure was 1, 5 and 10 bar,
the pressure developed inside the reactor vessel was 10–15, 30–50
and N50 bar, respectively. Although, with the increase of initial pressure,
48 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
O O
NaOH
Hum C Hum
OH
OH OH
pH 4 pH 5-8
Fig. 8. Mechanism involved in coal digestion by NaOH. Redrawn after Woskoboenko et al. [72].
the reactor pressure increased substantially, but the extraction yield
was b60% in Kideko coal and ~ 70% in Roto South coal, indicating that
there was no significant change in the extraction yield. The extraction
yield was ~ 75% at initial applied pressure of 1 bar, while with the in-
creased pressure to 3 bar at 400 °C the extraction yield was up to 90%.
These results recommend that the initial applied pressure does not
have significant effect on the extraction yield. However, the extraction
yield can be improved by increasing extraction temperature rather
than initial applied pressure. This strategy was also supported by their
observation, that at constant initial pressure of 1 bar and at 350 °C, the
extraction yield was increased gradually; from 50 to 65% in case of
Kideko coal with the increase of reaction time from 0.5 to 2 h.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the variation of the ash content in extracted
coal and residual coal with initial applied pressure for the Kideko and
Roto South coal samples. There was no significant change initiated by
the increase of initial applied pressure with the extraction temperature
(Fig. 12). Once the extraction temperature was increased to 400 °C, ash
content was b0.3%. This result also indicates that in order to achieve
lower ash content in extracted coal, it is better to increase the extraction
temperature rather than increasing initial applied pressure.
Fig. 13 shows the variation of ash content in residual coal associated
with the change in the initial applied pressure. No significant effect of
initial applied pressure on the ash content in residual coal was observed,
as long as extraction temperature remained the same.
The ash content in the residual coal samples increased slowly within
the temperature range of 250–350 °C. However, once the extraction
temperature rose to 400 °C during Roto south coal extraction, the ash
content of the residual coal increased rapidly. This result indicates that
ash content of the residual coal at lower temperature (b 350 °C) was
low; whereas, at higher temperature (400 °C) ash content was higher,
since the extraction yield was high (~90%).
(Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2008) Elsevier).
Fig. 9. Relationship between coal softening temperature and coal extraction rate.
Okuyama et al. [48]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2004) Elsevier).
O
NaOH
C Na Hum C Na
O O
O Na
+ H2O + H2O
pH > 8
4.4. Effect of particle size
The effects of particle size on the coal liquefaction were studied and
some inconsistent inferences exist in the available literature. Because of
the difference in the operating parameters, extraction solvents and con-
ditions, it is difficult to assess and make direct comparisons among the
available literature to draw conclusion out of it. In order to investigate
the effect of particle size on the Elbistan lignite liquefaction, coal parti-
cles of 0.25 and 1.5 mm were treated with Tetralin (solvent/coal ratio
3:1) at 400 °C for an hour, and observed that the reduction of particle
size from 1.5 to 0.25 mm did not cause any significant changes in the
total conversion, only changed from 72.57 to 72.79% [79]. Similar, trends
were also observed by Li et al., Curran et al. [80,81] with different coal
particle sizes ranging from 74 to 700 μm within the extraction temper-
ature ranging from 350 to 450 °C. Some other studies have shown that
the initial particle size has no effect on the extraction yields of coal liq-
uefaction process [81–85]. Curran et al., studied the kinetics of coal ex-
traction with pure hydrogen donor solvent (Tetralin) and reported
that their runs with two size fractions,74–149 μm and 297–700 μm,
gave identical results and concluded the conversion and rate of reaction
are independent of particle size [80].
Giri and Sharma [86] investigated the mass transfer limitations on
solvent extraction of coal with two ranges of particle sizes between
841–2000 and 125–250 μm and found that the extraction yields of
coal were 13 and 33.6% respectively. Finer coal particles provided the
higher extraction yields and this is believed to be due to the increasing
of the surface area of the coal particles [86]. Samanta and Mondal [74],
investigated the effects of particle sizes on the reduction of mineral mat-
ter with three different average coal particle size 126, 250 and 403 μm
using different polar solvents and observed that ash removal gradually
increases with the decrease of the finer coal particles and yields more
organic solvent soluble compounds.
Based on the literature survey summarized in Tables 2a–2d, we
attempted to find out the relationship of coal particle size and extraction
yield of AFC. It can be generalized that the higher extraction yields (74–
91%) were obtained from b75 μm coal particles, moderate (56–81%)
from b 150 μm and low to moderate (12–70%) from b250 μm. These re-
sults indicate that finer coal particles are providing higher extraction
yield. This is possibly due to diffusional resistance and more penetration
of the solvent into the coal matrix.
4.5. Effect of coal properties
Coal properties are important in assessing the quality of the coal and
its proper utilization in the industry. The extraction yield of coals by sol-
vent extraction is one of the most important aspects in AFC production
process, which depends on the number of factors, namely type of sol-
vent (polar, non-polar of mixed), softening temperature of coal, extrac-
tion temperature and properties of the feed coal. Koyano et al. [87]
investigated the coal properties (proximate and ultimate analysis) of
76 coals from different origin and found that the oxygen content of
the coal as an important parameter affecting the extraction yield of
AFC and they developed a correlation for the extraction yield of coal
with 1-MN at 360 °C. The influence of C/H became clear for 1-MN in
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
Fig. 10. Relationship between the softening temperature of raw coal and extraction yields with (a) DMN-W and (b) LCO [45]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2002) Elsevier).
the case for coals with oxygen b8.2% and found that a non-polar (1-MN)
or slightly polar (LCO) is suitable for coal with b8.2% oxygen content.
However, coals with N 8.2% oxygen content requires polar solvent, like
CMNO to achieve higher extraction yield of HPC.
The type of maceral and their contents in the coal matrix also have
the influences on the conversion of coal and it's utilization. The direct
coal liquefaction performance has been evaluated using petrographic
methods to understand the maceral transition during solvent extraction
process and studied the reactivity of the inertinite and vitrinite-rich
coals with different organic solvents and observed that the extraction
yield was lower for inertinite-rich coals [88–92]. Recently, Niekerk et
al. [89] studied South African coals of similar rank with the different
maceral content and found a relationship between the extraction yields
and mean maximum reflectance (MMVR), indicating that the higher the
MMVR of the coal lower the extraction yield. Rahman et al. [62] also
found a correlation of AFC extraction yields with vitrinite content and
MMVR of the feed coal. They observed that the vitrinite-rich Canadian
lignite coal with a lower MMVR value resulted higher extraction yields.
In addition to the studies mentioned earlier, there are some studies in
this area with different focus which will be described in following
paragraphs.
Cody et al. [93] measured the swelling of coals in chlorobenzene,
THF, pyridine and found that the swelling of coals in these solvents
was anisotropic, i.e. greater in perpendicular to the bedding plane
than parallel to it. Further, once swollen, coals from which most of the
solvent (pyridine) has been removed do not return to their original
shape. Hall and Larsen [94] studied the coal structural change following
solvent extraction. For some coal they reported that the process of pyr-
idine extraction does not change the chemical composition of coal
significantly.
Solvent-refined coal (SRC) process is similar to HyperCoal produc-
tion, with major difference in presence of H2 in SRC. SRC is derived
from the direct liquefaction of coal with highly polyaromatic character
and relatively high in N, O and S content [95]. In SRC process, pulverized
Table 3
Extraction yield of AFC at different temperatures from different coals. (Data from [62]).
Coal Solvent
CV 1-MN
SAb
SBc
GEN 1-MN
SA
SB
BD 1-MN
SA
SB
a Weight
Percentage yield based on residue produced (daf), Yield ðwt:%; dafÞ ¼ Weight of
b
SA: non-hydrotreated industrial solvent.
c
SB: hydrotreated industrial solvent.
49
coal is mixed with coal-derived solvent. The resultant mixture with H2 is
passed through a preheater and reactor. Hydrogen reacts with organic
sulfur compounds forming the hydrogen sulfide. The clean coal product
can be recovered after separating and filtering H2S and mineral matters
[96]. SRC contains mineral matter in the form of soluble organometallic
compounds (cannot be removed by filtration), extraction with either
benzene or tetralin as a solvent in order to remove these from SRC.
Ashida et al. [97] presented a coal fractionation method to separate a
bituminous coal into several fractions without decomposing coal. They
have shown the sequential solvent extraction at different temperatures
lower than 350 °C and separated bituminous coals into several fractions
having different molecular mass compounds, free from mineral matters.
Morimoto et al. [98] studied on hydrothermal degradative extraction
method for converting low-rank coal into upgraded coal and thermo-
plastic extract in a flow of hot water at b 350 °C. The extraction yields
of low-rank coals ranged from 40 to 70 wt% depending upon the coal
rank.
4.6. Challenges in demineralization of coal to produce AFC
Although, a small scale demonstration pilot plant (capacity
0.1 t/day) utilizing coal derived 2-ring aromatics was developed
(KOBE Steel, Japan) but not yet gone large scale production. In spite
many processes been demonstrated in small batch, operating them in
a continuous mode for longer period of time is another challenge. Coal
tar distillate or coal derived oil's are producing AFC with high extraction
yield, this may be a good supplement to maintain the solvent recycling
system; however, producing this industrial solvent in a cost effective
manner is highly desirable. Since the detailed chemical reactions occur-
ring in solid–liquid–gas phases are not completely known and the oper-
ations have not been done in long term basis, which raises a huge
concern about the reliability of the developed system possessing a
huge challenge in commercialization of AFC/HPC process. Realization
of the know-how and knowledge obtained so far to build a continuous
Temperature (°C) Yield % (daf)a
400 30.4
400 57.5
400 62.0
400 24.5
400 62.5
400 71.6
400 31.8
400 74.3
400 78.4
of dry AFC
feed coal ðdafÞ
 100.
50 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
Fig. 11. Variation of extraction yield with initial applied pressure [52]. (Reprinted with
permission from Copyright (2008) Elsevier).
operational commercial plant is a challenge. In addition, considering the
toxic nature of these solvents environmental impacts, residual coal uti-
lization and waste management issues need to be addressed properly.
5. Potential applications of UCC and AFC
AFC or HPC here refers to a coal-derived solid fuel with overall ash
content in the order of 0.1%, which has the potential to burn directly
in gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) systems with net power genera-
tion efficiency not b 48% and can also be potentially used in DCFC sys-
tems with N 60% power generation efficiency based on its HHV. Syn-
gas production from these upgraded coal are more energy-intensive,
and can be used as a hydrogen source for high-efficiency electricity gen-
eration with zero emissions and as a feedstock for the synthesis of
value-added chemicals and liquid fuels [36]. Potential applications of
these coals in the industrial sectors are described briefly as follows;
5.1. Application of UCC/AFC in chemical looping combustion
Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is a novel technology for CO2
capture with no or less energy penalty compared to conventional com-
bustion [99,100]. CLC uses metal oxide as an oxygen carrier. CLC process
consists of two interconnected fluidized bed reactors: an air reactor and
a fuel reactor. The solid oxygen carrier is circulated between the air and
fuel reactors. In CLC process, the metal oxide supplies the stoichiometric
oxygen needed for fuel combustion, producing CO2 and H2O. The CO2
Fig. 12. Variation of ash content of extracted coal with initial applied pressure [52].
(Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2008) Elsevier).
Fig. 13. Variation of ash content of residual coal with initial applied pressure [52].
thus formed can be easily recovered by condensing water vapor with
less energy involvement. The CO2 can be sequestrated with little or no
energy penalty. In spite of several advantages, one of the major issues
with CLC of solid fuels is ash deposition and contamination of oxygen
carrier with ash from coal during combustion. The problem related to
contamination can be solved using solid fuel with an insignificant or a
lower amount of minerals. Thus, the ideal CLC with solid fuel would
be with the fuel containing negligible or no mineral matter. In this con-
text, AFC is the best candidate for CLC. In spite of these benefits, there
are only few studies on CLC of AFC so far.
Based on the research carried out recently in our group [62,101] we
have presented chemical looping combustion of AFC with CuO as an ox-
ygen carrier. Thermogravimetric analysis was performed to evaluate
thermal reactivity behavior of CuO and AFC as solid fuel with different
ratios of CuO/AFC mixtures (10 to 50) at different temperatures (650–
1000 °C) under nitrogen environment. CLC reaction mechanism were
also proposed and evaluated with the experimental results. Our group
has recently performed multi-cycle tests with CuO/AFC ratio 30 and
found that there was no interference in the reaction due to deposited
ash for the five consecutive cycles and the reactions remain almost the
same for all the cycles [102].
5.2. Catalytic gasification of ash free coals to produce syngas
Coal is gasified to produce syngas (H2 and CO). Steam gasification of
coal is widely used because of increase in H2 content in the off gas [103].
H2, CO, CO2 and CH4 are the principal products from the steam gasifica-
tion of coal. The distribution of these constituents in the product gas is
governed mainly by temperature, pressure and various chemical reac-
tions that may occur in the gasifier [104].
C þ H2 O→CO þ H2
CO þ 3H2 ⇌CH4 þ H2 O
2CO þ 2H⇌2CH4 þ CO2
CO þ H2 O⇌CO2 þ H2
In the absence of catalyst, steam gasification usually requires tem-
perature above 800 °C. However, kinetics of gasification process can
be significantly enhanced using catalysts and gasification can be
achieved at lower temperature [105]. Commonly used catalysts for
such application are alkali (e.g., potassium, sodium) and alkaline earth
(e.g., magnesium, calcium) metals [104]. One of the major problems
with catalytic coal gasification is the deactivation of the catalysts by
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56 51

mineral matters in coal. Obviously, in order to address this problem the thermoplasticity of the coal blend more than GO caking coal. The ther-
best would be to remove the minerals from coal prior to gasification, as moplasticity of the blend with HPC was found to be higher than that
discussed in the earlier sections. Some of the studies [106–108] have of the standard blend but while comparing with 5–10% (mass) blending
shown that the better gasification performances of AFC with catalyst of HPC into a standard coal remarkably increased the thermoplasticity
rather than the catalyzed and non-catalyzed parent coals. Sharma et of the blend, in wide temperature range (250–450 °C). The study also
al. [109] has shown that the catalytic gasification of HyperCoal yielded investigated the effects of temperature on adding PaHPC to the standard
higher gasification rates at 700 °C, without catalyst deactivation. In an- coal blend. At an extraction temperature of 360 °C, thermoplasticity in-
other study Sharma et al. [110] have compared the catalytic steam gas- creased in the lower temperature range (250 to 450 °C). Addition of 10%
ification characteristics of HyperCoal and its parent raw coal. PaHPC, extracted at 400 °C, to the blend greatly increased the overall
Recently, Kopyscinski et al. [107] carried out steam gasification ex- thermoplasticity. The resolidification temperature range was found to
periments of AFC with and without catalyst (K2CO3) in a drop down re- similar to the standard blend. This shows the beneficial effects that
actor. They reported that catalyst in AFC increased the steam AFC/HPC can have by using it as a binding agent.
gasification rate by N10 times and decreased the activation energy by Another application is that AFC/HPC can also be added to increase
about 100 kJ/mol compared to the uncatalyzed one. In addition, the gas- the semicoke strength of the standard coal blends. The AFC/HPC has a
ification temperature was lower (600–700 °C).
Kim et al. [111] studied the reactivity of AFC in steam gasification for
H2 production. They found AFCs prepared from low rank coals were
generally less reactive than the parent raw coals. However, Kong et al.
[108] carried out the comparative study on the seam gasification of
AFCs (at 700–900 °C) and their parent raw coals ranging from lignite,
sub-bituminous, bituminous and coking coal. In their experiments, gas-
ification rate for AFCs were slower and they showed low H2/CO ratio,
AFCs behaved like a highly carbonized coal. The steam gasification and
CO to CO2 conversion of the AFCs were significantly enhanced by cata-
lyst (K2CO3), resulting in the higher H2/CO and CO2/CO molar ratio.
Sharma et al. [112] compared the steam gasification of raw coal and
HPC with gasification efficiency, gas yield with and without use of cata-
lyst (K2CO3) (Fig. 14). Gasification rates of coal and HPC were slow with-
out catalyst. Whereas, with the use of catalyst the gasification rate of
coal and HPC increased sharply. During gasification with HPC, the cata-
lysts were recycled for four times without and significant decrease in
gasification rate [109,110], this result demonstrates no catalyst deacti-
vation by HPC, since it does not contain mineral matters.
The gas yield and amount of CO, CO2, and H2 gas evolved were nearly
same for coal and HPC, without utilizing any catalyst, whereas, addition
of catalyst increased the gas yield significantly.
In addition, amount of H2 evolved during catalytic gasification was
several times higher than that of without a catalyst.

5.3. Use of AFC as a blending agent in coke making

Steel manufacturing process utilize high carbonious materials, com-

monly referred as coke. Good quality coke making process is time con-
suming and expensive, requires carbonization of inferior or low
quality coal. Carbonization of coal improves the bulk density of the
feed coal. The improvement of the bulk density leads to a closure con-
tact of the coal particles and thus results stronger bond between coke
cells [113]. United States Steel Corporation developed the clean coke
idea for producing metallurgical coke, chemical feedstocks and fuels
from non-metallurgical coals [114]. JSW steel manufacturing company
[115] have been successfully utilizing 35% of the inferior coals for pro-
ducing coke with a coke strength after reaction (CSR) in the range of
64–66%, a coke reactivity index (CRI) between 23 and 25% and M10 in
the range of 4–6%. AFC shows good thermal plasticity [47,59], this char-
acteristic is suitable for making coking coal. Therefore, AFC is a promis-
ing blending candidate as coke oven feedstock. It also makes the coke
stronger and reduces the consumption of high rank coking coal.
Since thermoplasticity of AFC/HPC is much higher than caking coal,
addition of AFC/HPC in standard coal blend enhances coke strength
and thermoplasticity of the blend. Takanohashi et al. [116] investigated
the effect of HPC addition on coke strength and thermoplasticity. Fig. 15
shows the effects of adding GrgHPC-360 to the standard coal blend KRS-
GO-K9 (35-35-30). In their experiment, equal amount of GO coking coal
was substituted by HPC. The thermoplasticity of GrgHPC blends was Fig. 14. Comparison of (a) gasification profiles, (b) cumulative gas yield, and (c) mole
higher than that of the standard blend, and it reached highest at 10% percent fraction of product gas, for coal and HPC at 700 °C with and without K2CO3
level. Their results suggested that GrgHPC enhances the [105]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2009) American Chemical Society).
52 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
strong influence on the physical properties of the blend such as increas-
ing the tensile strength as shown by Takanohashi et al. [116]. Fig. 16
shows the effects of HPCs (extracted at 360 °C) addition, on the
semicoke strength of standard coal blends. As shown in Fig. 16, the ten-
sile strength increased greatly in 5% GrgHPC and 5% WWHPC blends
than the standard coal blend. However, decrease in tensile strength of
5% PaHPC than the standard blend in case of 5% PaHPC was related to
a higher percentage of lighter components in PaHPC, which might
have volatilized easily as temperature was raised, resulting in a weak,
porous semicoke.
5.4. Production of anode coke
Petroleum coke has been used in manufacturing carbon anodes for
aluminium production. During manufacturing process, the blends of pe-
troleum coke with a small proportion of coal tar binder pitch are carbon-
ized. Large quantities of cokes are required for carbon anode
manufacturing to meet the need of aluminium industries. The quality
and availability of petroleum coke for this process has been a growing
concern in the recent years. As an alternative, coal can be a viable carbon
resource for anode production, if it could meet the coke specifications.
As for example, Andrews et al. [69] at University of Kentucky Center
for Applied Energy Research (CAER) used Blue Gem coal to study the
feasibility of producing anode grade coke by utilizing mild solvent ex-
traction. In brief, coal was dissolved in solvent, the mineral matter and
unreacted products were removed by filtration, and the clean coal liquid
was converted to coke. The properties of the calcined cokes were com-
pared with typical petroleum coke and their uses in production of car-
bon anodes were assessed. In their experiment, ash contents of the
cokes exceeded the anode coke specification by little which they believe
might be due to contamination from the laboratory coker and may be
able to get rid of this problem in an industrial-scale process.
5.5. Application of AFC as a fuel in direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC)
Fuel cells generate electrical energy from fuels with higher efficien-
cy. DCFC system directly converts the chemical energy stored in solid
fuel into electricity. DCFCs are the only fuel cells that operate with
solid fuels. According to the type of electrolyte used, DCFCs can be
grouped into 3 types: molten hydroxides, molten carbonates and solid
oxides [117]. Also many hybrid models do exist. Researches on the
solid oxide electrolyte based DCFCs have been increasing due to a rela-
tively stable electrolyte and easy scale up [118]. DCFCs has advantages
of high efficiency, low cost fuel, highly concentrated CO2 in exhaust
gases, which can be sequestrated [117]. The concept of DCFC was pre-
sented by W.W. Jacques in the 19th century. Ishida et al., in 1988
showed the feasibility of a DCFC with solid oxide electrolyte, without
Fig. 15. Thermoplasticity as a function of temperature for the standard coal blend and
GrgHPC-360 blends [116]. (Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2008) Elsevier).
use of any liquid. Cooper in 2005, for the first time, used AFC as the
fuel in a molten Carbonate DCFC. Use of raw coal as fuel in molten car-
bonate electrolyte & solid-oxide-electrolyte fuel has been presented
earlier [119–121]. Use of coal in DCFC may cause problems due to inhi-
bition of cell operation by ash deposition after the cell reactions. Pro-
cessing of coals to remove mineral matters can be an effective and
economic ways to meet the fuels requirements of DCFCs [122]. The fea-
sibility of using AFC as fuel in DCFC has been studied by many re-
searchers [75,117,122,123] as it does not leaves ash for inhibiting the
mass transport after the cell reactions.
Kim et al. [122] used a solid-oxide-electrolyte for DCFC with contin-
uous AFC feeding system. They found cell performance was affected by
operating temperature; performance increased with increase in tem-
perature. The maximum power density was measured at 750 °C and in-
crease in temperature beyond this did not increase power, in their
experiment.
Lee et al. [75] evaluated the performance of various carbon mate-
rials: AFC, raw coal, active carbon, carbon black and graphite as fuel
for DCFC. They reported that the degree of carbonization determined
the electrochemical reactivity of fuels and the power density of AFC
was strongly temperature-dependent and generally decreased over
the period of time (day by day). Dudek et al. [117] used ash-free
“hyper-coal” as a fuel in DCFC. They demonstrated stable operation
with reasonable current and power densities. In addition, they demon-
strated that the performance can be improved by the use of catalyst and
proper operating conditions.
Rady et al. [124] used Victorian brown coals with minimal pre-treat-
ment and evaluated their performance in solid oxide electrolyte based
DCFC at 700 and 800 °C. They used commercial carbon black, chars pro-
duced from demineralized Morwell coal and the parent coal. The peak
power densities of raw and demineralized Morwell chars were similar
at 700 °C. Whereas, at 800 °C the raw Morwell char showed much
higher power densities, compared to commercial carbon black. On the
other hand, raw Morwell char give rise to highest power densities.
The better performance of raw Morwell char is suggested due to a great-
er availability of CO at the anode. In addition, the performance might
have enhanced due to presence of inorganic species in raw coal such
as Fe, Ca and Mg which might have catalyzed the Boudouard gasification
reaction (C(s) + CO2(g) → 2CO(g)). The performance of raw and AFC in
DCFC has been recently compared by Ju et al. [125]. They have studied
the influence of the physiochemical characteristics of raw coal, AFC
and carbon black.
Fig. 17 shows the comparison of electrochemical performance of raw
coal, AFC, carbon black in DCFC from 750 to 925 °C. The measured open-
circuit voltage increased with an increase in operating temperature and
the cell resistance decreased linearly. Raw coal showed the highest
open-circuit voltage with highest electrochemical reactivity in all the
Fig. 16. Tensile strengths of semicoke produced with HPCs extracted at 360 °C [116].
(Reprinted with permission from Copyright (2008) Elsevier).
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56 53

temperatures. Raw coal generated about twice fuel cell performances

compared to AFC due to the presence of volatile organic compounds
in it at temperature below 750 °C. Whereas, temperature over 900 °C,
both AFC and raw coals achieved similar power density. Their study
concluded that in the long-term operation of DCFC, power generated
from AFC would be more durable than from raw coal.

5.6. Coal water slurry (CWS) or coal water slurry fuel (CWSF)

Coal water slurry fuel (CWSF) is composed of fine coal particles

suspended in water and used as liquid fuel in place of oil, gas and coal
fired power plants. Wibberley [126] treated low rank coals hydrother-
mally to remove the moisture and as a result the treated coals become
hydrophobic in nature. Subsequent removal of the minerals and/or in-
organic components from treated coals by air/gas bubble flotation tech-
nique to produce ash-less or UCC coal, which has been utilized to
prepare coal water slurry fuel with higher solid loading for a particular
viscosity. This high solid loading slurry fuel can be utilized in combus-
tion boilers, diesel engines and kilns.

6. Economic study of AFC production

The literatures on economic evaluation of AFC are rarely available. To

the best of our knowledge, very few studies are available [48,68,127].
Okuyama et al. [48] established the material balance for HyperCoal
production plant with capacity of 6000 t/day that was constructed
near an Australian coal mining. The total cost was estimated to be
375 M$US including the manufacturing cost of the equipment
(11 M$US). The total construction cost (works and transportation etc.)
was estimated to be 250% of the equipment cost and 10.4 M$US for ni-
trogen circulation unit. 1.4 megatons/year of hypercoal is expected to be
produced from 2.3 megatons/year of Stratford coal. They have also pro-
posed the business model. Using average market price of the coal and
with some assumptions they have calculated the internal rate of returns
13% after 15 years of operations and concluded that it might be an eco-
nomically attractive business.
Fig. 18 shows the changing of calorie base price at the gate, free on
board (FOB), cost insurance and freight (CIF) for raw coal and hypercoal.
When the ash disposal cost is added to the general coal, the calorie
based price of HPC becomes almost the same as the general coal includ-
ing its ash disposal cost. This shows that HPC is economically competi-
tive with general coal in Japan. However, it is to be noted that there
are some typical characteristics of hypercoal-process and environmen-
tal tax in Japan such as higher transportation cost associated with the
raw coal (which is half of the total coal price), high cost for ash disposal
etc. these might have played the favorable role to make hyper coal more
economic. The economic study on the production of hyper coal applica-
ble for wider application is to be carried out in the future.
Wijaya and Zhang [68] in the review paper compared two coal de-
mineralization processes (i.e. acid/alkali leaching and solvent extrac-
tion) mainly in term of the removal efficiency of inorganic elements
and the economic aspect. They argue that both the methods are not Fig. 17. Comparison of the electrochemical performance of the DCFC for (a) raw coal, (b)
technically mature enough to generate ultraclean demineralized coal. ash-free coal, and (c) carbon black fuels at different temperatures [125]. (Reprinted with
Safety issues and economic feasibility, among others are identified as permission from Copyright (2014) Elsevier).
the barriers for commercialization of these technologies. They have pre-
sented the economic estimation based on a comparison to supercritical
pulverized-fuel coal boiler (SC pf) [68,127]. The capital cost ($M/MW)
based on AUD 2006 for chemical leaching and solvent extraction were limited domestic coal reserve, HPC is economical compared to the raw
estimated to be 0.932 to 0.949 and 0.882 to 0.942, respectively. Electric- coal when the cost for coal import, ash disposal and/or landfilling, ener-
ity cost breakdown ($/MWh) for chemical leaching process was pre- gy tax etc. are included. However, for countries having coal reserve and
sented as 106.2 to 106.5 (compared to 131.5 for SC pf) to be cheaper landfill disposal options the HPC production might not be eco-
competitive with LNG, HPC and UCC need to have a delivery cost nomic and relevant as shown in Japanese case. It has been proposed that
$2.50/GJ less than the cost of LNG. The cost for solvent extraction was to compete with liquid natural gas (LNG) for gas turbine combustion, ei-
estimated as 103.7 to 105.3 $/MWh. ther HPC or UCC has to further increase its process cost-effectiveness to
It is notable here that the economic estimation by Cottrell et al. cut the electricity delivery cost by $2.50/GJ less than the cost of LNG. The
[127], which is based on Japanese scenario. Since Japan has a very materialization of achievements obtained so far in HPC production area
54 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
into scale-up and industrial production involves many barriers includ-
ing safety, economic feasibility, increasing efficiency.
7. Summary
Upgrading of coal for removing ash forming minerals have been car-
ried out for several decades in order to mitigate the plant operational is-
sues and global environmental pollution. Chemical treatment processes
has been demonstrated as the most efficient technique for removal of
ash forming minerals from coal to produce UCC and AFC. UCC produc-
tion by acid and alkali digestion or AFC production by solvent extraction
of raw coals can be achieved with higher heating values and low mineral
contents, which can overcome the drawbacks of direct utilization of
coal.
7.1. UCC
The available literature show the ash content of the UCC is within the
range of 0.15 to 0.6% resulted either by treating bituminous coal with HF
followed by HCl or HNO3. The most effective treatment is HF followed
by HNO3 which has achieved ash content as low as 0.15%. Some re-
searcher treated coal only with HF, and others with NaOH followed by
HCl, demineralization in those cases were less than HF treatment
followed by HNO3 and or HCl. Followings are the summary of the
major observations for demineralization of coal to produce UCC;
• HF does not react with pyrites whereas, HNO3 (concentration ≥ 1 M)
alone reacts with pyrites as well as with carbonaceous matrix of the
coal even at lower concentration (b1 M). HF concentration (up to
3.5 M) plays a significant role in removal of ash content of coals and
its leaching efficiency is more effective with the finer coal particle
size (−75 μm). Fluoride content of the coal increases tremendously
due to the formation of fluoride compounds such as AlF3, NaAlF4,
CaF2 and MgF2 and drops upon HNO3 leaching.
• HNO3 treatment increases the N and O content of the coal, due to the
NO+ 2 attack to the carbonaceous coal structure, but the overall ash
content of the UCC reduces. Therefore, two stage leaching process,
HF followed by HNO3 treatment was found to be more effective to
produce UCC with the ash content as low as 0.15%. The combustion
of UCC resulted reduction in SO2 emission levels but NOx emissions
increased from UCC combustion obtained from treatment with HNO3.
• Microwave irradiation leaching (up to 2.5 h) technique with HF
followed by HNO3 treatment was more effective for coarser coal par-
ticles (~1000 μm) with lower ash content. However, in case of weaker
acid treatment followed by Na-EDTA, both the fine and coarser coal
particles showed negative demineralization effect.
Fig. 18. Changing in the calorie base prices of general coal and Hyper-coal [48]. (Reprinted
with permission from Copyright (2004) Elsevier).
7.2. AFC
It is evident from literature review that the higher extraction yields
of AFC depends on the following characteristics of coals: softening
point, extraction temperature, solvent polarity, feed particle size, feed
coals moisture content, maceral content etc. In general extraction
yield has been found higher at high treatment temperature related to
both the solvent- and thermal-induced relaxation of the nitrogen and
oxygen-containing compounds in the coal matrix. However, at certain
temperature (N 350–500 °C) coal molecules tends to undergo thermal
condensation, as a result decreases the extraction yields. The parame-
ters affecting the extraction yield of AFC are briefly summarized below;
• Finer coal particles (b75 μm) provides higher extraction yield, possi-
bly due to the increasing diffusibility and penetration of the solvent
into the coal matrix as well as the higher available surface area of
coal particles to come in contact with solvents.
• Hydrogen donor solvent like tetralin produce higher extraction yield
with higher extraction temperature (300–400 °C) whereas, for non-
hydrogen donor solvent, 1-MN, the extraction yield increase rapidly
until 350 °C, and then decreases gradually with the increase in tem-
perature. Since, 1-MN could not transfer hydrogen to increase the ex-
traction rate, as well as coal molecules undergoes thermal
condensation to produce residual coal via cross-linking at tempera-
ture range (350–500 °C) in coal matrix.
• The extraction yield increase linearly with the increase of polar con-
centration (Indole) in non-polar solvents from low-rank coals with
high oxygen content (≥8.2%) [63]. Maceral composition of coal plays
an important role for the coal extraction yield and higher vitrinite-
rich coal produce higher extraction yield [62].
Upgraded coals have been applied in DCFC, chemical looping com-
bustion, catalytic gasification to produce syngas, in coke oven process,
as a blending agent, production of anode coke. Studies on many issues
such as universal solvent or leaching reagent for UCC and AFC produc-
tion, recycling the solvents and reagents used in the process, and
socio-economic assessments are still in the developmental stage. How-
ever, at this point we can foresee that in the long-term operation power
generated from UCC and AFC would be more environmental friendly
than that from raw coal. In spite of having these benefits, economic eval-
uation of UCC and AFC are rarely available.
8. Recommendations
The ash content of the upgraded coal should be b0.1% to be consid-
ered as AFC for application in IGCC plant; however, many researchers
are producing AFC with higher ash content within the range of 0 to
2.3%. Among the bulky literatures available only few of them are meet-
ing the criteria for utilizing AFC in IGCC. Since the natural abundance of
low-grade coal is large, it is important to upgrade these coals and thus to
make it acceptable in terms of cleaner power generation as well as for
the environmental protection. It is recommended that;
• Research on regeneration of expensive and toxic reagents like HF and
HNO3 to be carried out to make the overall process cost-effective and
environmental friendly.
• Catalytic gasification of upgraded coal to produce syngas and applica-
tion in fuel cell and CLC would help in creating low emission technolo-
gy and greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) emission reduction. Thus, more
studies in this direction with performance evaluation are foreseen.
• Coal tar distillate or coal derived oil's are producing AFC with high ex-
traction yield and may be a good supplement to maintain the solvent
recycling system for producing AFC.
• The economic assessment and evaluation of AFC production process
are rarely available in the literature. Therefore, further fundamental
 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
studies on economic assessment and it's feasibility of commercializa-
tion need to be carried out in the future.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada under a Cooperative Research and Develop-
ment agreement (NSERC-CRD), Carbon Management Canada (Project
CMC-A02), and Canadian Centre for Clean Coal/Carbon and Mineral Pro-
cessing Technologies (C5MPT) and University of Alberta for providing
funding for conducting this study.
References
[1] IPCC, in: Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger (Eds.), Climate Change
2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
[2] IEA, 2013. IEA Clean Coal Centre Advances in Multi-pollutant Control. Anne M Car-
penter. (CCC/227).
[3] D. Pudasainee, J.H. Kim, Y.S. Yoon, Y.C. Seo, Oxidation, reemission and mass distri-
bution of mercury in bituminous coal fired power plants with SCR, CS-ESP and wet
FGD, Fuel 93 (2012) 312–318.
[4] A. Crawford, The de-ashing of coal by combined jig washing, froth-flotation, and
extraction with caustic soda, Brit. Intell. Object. Subcomm.; Final Report No. 522,
Item No. 30, 1946.
[5] A. Crawford, The preparation of ultra-clean coal in Germany, Trans. Inst. Min. Eng.
111 (1951) 204.
[6] P. Meshram, B.K. Purohit, M.K. Sinha, S.K. Sahu, B.D. Pandey, Demineralization of
low grade coal – a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 41 (2015) 745–761.
[7] E. Azimi, S. Karimipour, M.M. Rahman, J.K. Szymanski, R. Gupta, Evaluation of the
performance of air dense medium fluidized bed (ADMFB) for low ash coal benefi-
ciation, part I: effect of operating conditions, Energy Fuel 27 (2013) 5595–5606.
[8] E. Azimi, S. Karimipour, M.M. Rahman, J.K. Szymanski, R. Gupta, Evaluation of the
performance of air dense medium fluidized bed (ADMFB) for low ash coal benefi-
ciation, part II: characteristics of the beneficiated coal, Energy Fuel 27 (2013)
5606–5616.
[9] H. Katalambula, R. Gupta, Low-grade coals: a review of some prospective
upgrading technologies, Energy Fuel 23 (2009) 3392–3405.
[10] R.K. Dwari, K.H. Rao, Tribo-electrostatic behavior of high ash non-coking Indian
thermal coal, Int. J. Miner. Process. 81 (2) (2006) 93–104.
[11] K.M. Steel, J.W. Patrick, The production of ultra clean coal by chemical demineral-
ization, Fuel 80 (2001) 2019.
[12] K.M. Steel, J.W. Patrick, The production of ultra clean coal by sequential leaching
with HF followed by HNO3, Fuel 82 (2003) 1917.
[13] F. Rubieira, A. Arenillas, C. Pevida, R. Garcia, J.J. Pis, K.M. Steel, J.W. Patrick, Coal
structure and reactivity changes induced by chemical demineralization, Fuel Pro-
cess. Technol. 79 (2002) 273.
[14] R.H. Yoon, in: J.W. Leonard III, B.C. Hardinge (Eds.), Coal Preparation, SME-AIME,
Colorado 1991, p. 966.
[15] G.R. Couch, Advanced Coal Cleaning Technology, IEA Coal Research, IEA Coal Re-
search Publishers, 1991.
[16] O. Trass, O. Bajor, Modified oil agglomeration process for coal beneficiation. Simul-
taneous grinding and oil agglomeration, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 66 (1988) 286–290.
[17] O. Trass, E.R. Vasquez, Modified oil agglomeration process for coal beneficiation. IV.
Pilot plant demonstration of the simultaneous grinding agglomeration process,
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72 (1994) 113–118.
[18] Z.Y. Wang, Y. Ohtsuka, A. Tomita, Removal of mineral matter from coal by alkali
treatment, Fuel Process. Technol. 13 (1986) 279–289.
[19] H.G. Alam, A.Z. Moghaddam, M.R. Omidkhah, The influence of process parameters
on desulfurization of Mezino coal by HNO3/HCl leaching, Fuel Process. Technol. 90
(1) (2009) 1–7.
[20] S. Kizgut, K. Baris, S. Yilmaz, Effect of chemical demineralization on thermal behav-
ior of bituminous coals, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 86 (2) (2006) 483–488.
[21] G.R. Drykacz, E.P. Horwitz, Separation of coal macerals, Fuel 61 (1982) 3–12.
[22] G.R. Drykacz, C.A.A. Bloomquist, Use of continuous flow centrifugation techniques
for coal maceral separation. 1. Fundamentals, Energy Fuel 6 (4) (1992) 357–374.
[23] G.R. Drykacz, L. Rustic, J. Fredericks, An investigation into the process of centrifugal
sink/float separations of micronized coals. 1. Some inferences for coal maceral sep-
arations, Energy Fuel 6 (6) (1992) 720–742.
[24] S. Mukherjee, P.C. Borthakur, Chemical demineralization/desulphurization of high
sulphur coal using sodium hydroxide and acid solutions, Fuel 80 (14) (2001)
2037–2040.
[25] S. Mukherjee, P.C. Borthakur, Demineralization of subbituminous high sulphur coal
using mineral acids, Fuel Process. Technol. 85 (2003) 157–164.
[26] K.M. Steel, J. Besida, T.A. O'Donnell, D.G. Wood, Production of ultra clean coal - part
I - dissolution behaviour of mineral matter in black coal toward hydrochloric and
hydrofluoric acids, Fuel Process. Technol. 70 (2001) 171–192.
[27] K.M. Steel, J. Besida, T.A. O'Donnell, D.G. Wood, Production of ultra clean coal - part
II - ionic equilibria in solution when mineral matter from black coal is treated with
aqueous hydrofluoric acid, Fuel Process. Technol. 70 (2001) 193–219.
[28] N.P. Vasilakos, S.C. Clinton, Chemical beneficiation of coal with aqueous hydrogen
peroxide/sulphuric acid solutions, Fuel 63 (11) (1984) 1561–1963.
55
[29] D.J. Boron, R.S. Taylor, Mild oxidations of coal: 1. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation, Fuel
64 (2) (1985) 209–211.
[30] H. Rottendorf, The recycling of fluoride in coal refining, Australian Patent 60, 6607,
1986.
[31] H.G.M. Edwards, V. Fawcett, Quantitative Raman spectroscopic studies of
nitronium ion concentrations in mixtures of sulphuric and nitric acids, J. Mol.
Struct. 326 (1994) 131–143.
[32] K.M. Steel, J.W. Patrick, Re-generation of hydrofluoric acid and selective separation
of Si(IV) in a process for producing ultra-clean coal, Fuel Process. Technol. 86 (2)
(2004) 179–190.
[33] D.K. Sharma, S.K. Singh, Advanced process for the production of clean coal by
chemical leaching technique, Energy Sources 17 (1995) 485–493.
[34] A. Nabeel, T.A. Khan, D.K. Sharma, Studies on the production of ultra-clean coal by
alkali-acid leaching of low-grade coals, Energy Sources 31 (2009) 594–601.
[35] E. Jorjani, G.H. Chapi, M.T. Khorami, Ultra clean coal production by microwave irra-
diation pretreatment and sequential leaching with HF followed by HNO3, Fuel Pro-
cess. Technol. 92 (2011) 1898–1904.
[36] N. Wijaya, T.K. Choo, L. Zhang, Generation of ultra-clean coal from Victorian
brown coal — sequential and single leaching at room temperature to elucidate
the elution of individual inorganic elements, Fuel Process. Technol. 92 (2011)
2127–2137.
[37] N. Wijaya, T.K. Choo, L. Zhang, Generation of ultra-clean coal from Victorian
Brown coal: effect of hydrothermal treatment and particle size on coal demin-
eralization and the extraction kinetic of individual metals, Energy Fuel 26
(2012) 5028–5035.
[38] K. Clark, J. Langley, The preparation of bulk ultra clean coal samples from the UCC
Energy Pilot Plant for evaluation as a gas turbine fuel, Proceedings of the 2nd
Japan–Australia Coal Research Workshop NEDO Yoko Kaikan, Tokyo, Japan 2002,
pp. 47–53.
[39] K. Clark, J. Langley, Developments in Ultra Clean Coal, North Sydney, 2005.
[40] G.F. Yannolis, Ultra Clean Coal: An Option for Greenhouse Friendly Coal Fired
Power Generation, Presentation to APP CFE Taskforce Meeting, Montreal, Canada,
Sept 2010 13–15.
[41] G.F. Yannolis, Ultra clean coal: an option for greenhouse friendly coal fired power
generation, ACPS Meeting Cessnock, NSW 20 August, 2008.
[42] K.M. Steel, J. Besida, T.A. O'Donnell, D.G. Wood, Production of ultra clean coal: part
III. Effect of coal's carbonaceous matrix on the dissolution of mineral matter using
hydrofluoric acid, Fuel Process. Technol. 76 (2002) 51–59.
[43] S. Marland, B. Han, A. Merchant, N. Rowson, The effect of microwave radiation on
coal grindability, Fuel 79 (2000) 1283–1288.
[44] K. Renganathan, J.W. Zondlo, E.A. Mintz, P. Kneisl, A.H. Stiller, Preparation of an
ultra-low ash coal extract under mild conditions, Fuel Process. Technol. 18
(1988) 273–278.
[45] T. Yoshida, T. Takanohashi, K. Sakanishi, I. Saito, M. Fujita, K. Mashimo, The effect of
extraction condition on ‘HyperCoal’ production (1)—under room-temperature fil-
tration, Fuel 81 (2002) 1463–1469.
[46] T. Yoshida, C. Li, T. Takanohashi, A. Matsumura, S. Sato, I. Saito, Effect of extraction
condition on “HyperCoal” production (2)—effect of polar solvents under hot filtra-
tion, Fuel Process. Technol. 86 (2004) 61–72.
[47] New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan
Coal Energy Center (JCOAL), Clean Coal Technologies in Japan, 2006 1–116.
[48] N. Okuyama, N. Komatsu, T. Shigehisa, T. Kaneko, S. Tsuruya, Hyper-coal process to
produce the ash-free coal, Fuel Process. Technol. 85 (2004) 947–967.
[49] M. Tamura, International Symposium on Low Rank Coal, Innovation & Technolo-
gies for Sustainable Future, Melbourne, 2010.
[50] S. Kinmoshita, S. Yamamoto, T. Deuguchi, T. Shigehisa, Demonstration of upgraded
brown coal (UBC®) process by 600 tonnes/day plant, KOBELCO Technology Re-
view No. 29, Dec. 2010 (www.kobelco.co.jp/english/ktr/pdf/ktr_29/093-098.pdf
(access Nov 2016)).
[51] M.H. Makgato, L.J. Moitsheki, L. Shoko, B.L. Kgobane, D.L. Morgan, W.W. Focke, Al-
kali-assisted coal extraction with polar aprotic solvents, Fuel Process. Technol. 90
(2009) 591–598.
[52] S.D. Kim, K.J. Woo, S.K. Jeong, Y.J. Rhim, S.H. Lee, Production of low ash coal by ther-
mal extraction with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 25 (4) (2008)
758–763.
[53] N. Okuyama, T. Deguchi, K. Shimasaki, S. Shinozaki, Proceedings of International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, USA, 2000.
[54] K. Ouchi, S. Itoh, M. Makabe, H. Itoh, Pyridine extractable material from bituminous
coal, its donor properties and its effect on plastic properties, Fuel 68 (1989)
735–740.
[55] R.K. Mahat, W. Rodgers, F. Basile, Microwave radiation heating in pressurized ves-
sels for the rapid extraction of coal samples for broad spectrum GCMS analysis, En-
ergy Fuel 28 (2014) 6326–6335.
[56] K. Miura, M. Shimada, K. Mae, S.Y. Huan, Extraction of coal below 350 °C in flowing
non-polar solvent, Fuel 80 (2001) 1573–1582.
[57] I. Mochida, A. Takarabe, K. Taeshita, Solvolytic liquefaction of coals with a series of
solvents, Fuel 58 (1979) 17–23.
[58] T. Takanohashi, T. Shishido, I. Saito, Effects of HyperCoal addition on coke strength
and thermoplasticity of coal blends, Energy Fuel 22 (2008) 1779–1783.
[59] Anon., Hyper-coal (ash-free coal) process with liquid CO2 as solvent, IP.com J. 9
(4B) (2009) 27.
[60] M. Iino, T. Takanohashi, S. Obara, H. Tsueta, Y. Sanokawa, Extraction of coals with
CS2-N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone mixed solvent at room temperature: effect of coal
rank and synergism of the mixed solvent, Fuel 67 (1988) 1639–1647.
[61] N. Kashimura, T. Takanohashi, I. Saito, Upgrading the solvent used for the thermal
extraction of sub-bituminous coal, Energy Fuel 20 (2006) 2063–2066.
56 M. Rahman et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 158 (2017) 35–56
[62] M. Rahman, A. Samanta, R. Gupta, Production and characterization of ash-free coal
from low-rank Canadian coal by solvent extraction, Fuel Process. Technol. 115
(2013) 88–98.
[63] N. Sakimoto, K. Koyano, T. Takanohashi, Relationship between extraction yield of
coal by polar solvent and oxygen functionalities in coals, Energy Fuel 27 (2013)
6594–6597.
[64] P. Painter, N. Pulati, R. Cetiner, M. Sobkowiak, G. Mitchell, J. Mathews, Dissolution
and dispersion of coal in ionic liquids, Energy Fuel 24 (2010) 1848–1853.
[65] P.C. Painter, P. Opaprakasit, A. Scaroni, Ionomers and the structure of coal, Energy
Fuel 14 (2000) 1115–1118.
[66] P. Opaprakasit, P.C. Painter, M.M. Coleman, A.W. Scaroni, Ionomer-like structures
and their role in the pyridine-extractability of Argonne Premium coals, Am.
Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. 46 (1) (2001) 331–333 (Preprints, San Diego, CA,
April 1–5).
[67] P. Opaprakasit, P.C. Painter, A.W. Scaroni, Ionomer-like structures and π-cation in-
teractions in Argonne Premium coals, Energy Fuel 16 (3) (2002) 543–551.
[68] N. Wijaya, L. Zhang, A critical review of coal demineralization and its implication
on understanding the speciation of organically bound metals and submicrometer
mineral grains in coal, Energy Fuel 25 (2011) 1–16.
[69] R.J. Andrews, T. Rantell, D. Jacques, J.C. Hower, J.S. Gardner, M. Amick, Mild coal ex-
traction for the production of anode coke from Blue Gem coal, Fuel 89 (2010)
2640–2647.
[70] D.K. Sharma, S.K. Singh, Extraction of coal through dilute alkaline hydrolytic treat-
ment at low temperature and atmospheric pressure, Fuel Process. Technol. 19
(1988) 73–94.
[71] R.J. Camier, S.R. Siemon, Colloidal structure of Victorian brown coals. 1 Alkaline di-
gestion of brown coal, Fuel 57 (1978) 85–88.
[72] F. Woskoboenko, W.O. Stacy, D. Raisb, Chapter 4: physical structure and properties
of brown coal, The Science of Victorian Brown Coal: Structure, Properties and Con-
sequences for Utilization, Elsevier 1991, pp. 151–246.
[73] J.J. Kolak, R.C. Burruss, The use of solvent extractions and solubility theory to dis-
cern hydrocarbon associations in coal, with application to the coal–supercritical
CO2 system, Org. Geochem. 73 (2014) 56–69.
[74] R.S. Samanta, C. Mondal, Separation of mineral matter from Indian coal by using
solvents, IJERT 3 (2014) 349–357.
[75] I. Lee, J. Sunmi, C. Donghyuk, C. Hokyung, L. Sihyun, L. Kibong, Y. Jiho, Ash-free coal
as fuel for direct carbon fuel cell, Sci. China Chem. 57 (7) (2014) 1010–1018.
[76] Y. Sun, X. Wang, T. Feng, G. Yu, F. Wang, Evaluation of coal extraction with super-
critical carbon dioxide/1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone mixed solvent, Energy Fuel 28
(2014) 816–824.
[77] O. Sonmez, E.S. Giray, Producing ashless coal extracts by microwave irradiation,
Fuel 90 (2011) 2125–2131.
[78] A.A. Vostrikov, O.N. Fedyaeva, D.Y. Dubov, S.A. Psarov, M.Y. Sokol, Conversion of
brown coal in supercritical water without and with addition of oxygen at continu-
ous supply of coal water slurry, Energy 36 (2011) 1948–1955.
[79] H. Karaca, C. Koyunoglu, Co-liquefaction of Elbistan lignite and biomass. Part I: the
effect of the process parameters on the conversion of liquefaction products, Energy
Sources, Part A 32 (2010) 495–511.
[80] X. Li, H. Hu, L. Jin, S. Hu, B. Wu, Approach for promoting liquid yield in direct lique-
faction of Shenhua coal, Fuel Process. Technol. 89 (11) (2008) 1090–1095.
[81] G.P. Curran, R.T. Struck, E. Gorin, Mechanism of hydrogen-transfer process to coal
and coal extract, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 6 (2) (1967) 166–173.
[82] C. Figueroa, Modelling of Solvent Extraction of Coal(MSc thesis) University of Al-
berta, 2012.
[83] J.S. Abichandani, J.H. Wieland, Y.T. Shah, D.C. Cronauer, Kinetics of short contact
time coal liquefaction. Part I: effect of operating variables, AICHE J. 30 (2) (1984)
295–303.
[84] M. Varol, A.T. Atimtay, B. Bay, H. Olgun, Investigation of co- combustion character-
istics of low quality lignite coals and biomass with thermogravimetric analysis,
Thermochim. Acta 510 (2010) 195–201.
[85] S. Vyazovkin, Model-free kinetics, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 83 (2006) 45–51.
[86] C.C. Giri, D.K. Sharma, Mass-transfer studies of solvent extraction of coals in N-
methyl-2-pyrrolidone, Fuel 79 (5) (2000) 577–585.
[87] K. Koyano, T. Takanohashi, I. Saito, Estimation of the extraction yield of coals by a
simple analysis, Energy Fuel 25 (2011) 2565–2571.
[88] R. Suárez, J.C. Crelling, Applied Coal Petrology: The Role of Petrology in Coal Utili-
zation, Elsevier, 2008.
[89] D.V. Niekerk, G.D. Mitchell, J.P. Mathews, Petrographic and reflectance analysis of
solvent-swelled and solvent-extracted South African vitrinite-rich and inertinite-
rich coals, Int. J. Coal Geol. 81 (2010) 45–52.
[90] J.A.R. van Veen, K. King, On the difference in reactivity between high- and low-
inertinite coals, Fuel Process. Technol. 16 (1987) 3–17.
[91] A. Davis, G.D. Mitchell, F. Derbyshire, R.F. Rathbone, R. Lin, Optical properties of
coals and liquefaction residues as indicators of reactivity, Fuel 70 (1991) 352–360.
[92] R.A. Keogh, D. Taulbee, J.C. Hower, B. Chawla, B.H. Davis, Liquefaction characteris-
tics of the three major maceral groups separated from a single coal, Energy Fuel
6 (1992) 614–618.
[93] G.D. Cody, J.W. Larsen, M. Siskin, Anisotropic solvent swelling of coals, Energy Fuel
2 (1988) 340–344.
[94] P.J. Hall, J.W. Larsen, Use of Einstein specific heat models to elucidate coal structure
and changes in coal structure following solvent extraction, Energy Fuel 7 (1993)
42–46.
[95] D. Smook, Removal of mineral material from solvent-refined coal by solvent ex-
tractions, Fuel Process. Technol. 88 (2007) 795–798.
View publication stats
[96] R.G. Shaver, A solvent-refined coal process for clean utility fuel, Pollution Control
and Energy Needs. Chapter 7 1974, pp. 80–90.
[97] R. Ashida, K. Nakgawa, M. Oga, H. Nakagawa, K. Miura, Fractionation of coal by use
of high temperature solvent extraction technique and characterization of the frac-
tions, Fuel 87 (2008) 576–582.
[98] M. Morimoto, H. Nakagawa, K. Miura, Conversion of a wide range of low-rank coals
into upgraded coals and thermoplastic extracts having similar chemical and phys-
ical properties using degradative hydrothermal extraction, Energy Fuel 24 (2010)
3060–3065.
[99] J. Adanez, A. Abad, F. Garcia-Labiano, P. Gayan, L.F. De Diego, Progress in chemical-
looping combustion and reforming technologies, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38 (2)
(2012) 215–282.
[100] R. Siriwardane, H. Tian, G. Richards, T. Simonyi, J. Poston, Chemical-looping com-
bustion of coal with metal oxide oxygen carriers, Energy Fuel 23 (8) (2009)
3885–3892.
[101] A. Shabani, M. Rahman, D. Pudasainee, A.K. Samanta, P. Sarkar, R. Gupta, Chemical
looping combustion of ash-free coal with CuO as an oxygen carrier - part I: ther-
mogravimetric single cycle study and evaluation of the reaction mechanism, Can.
J. Chem. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22721.
[102] A. Shabani, M. Rahman, D. Pudasainee, A.K. Samanta, P. Sarkar, R. Gupta, Chemical
looping combustion of ash-free coal with CuO as an oxygen carrier - part II: ther-
mogravimetric multicycle performance evaluation, Can. J. Chem. Eng. (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22713.
[103] T. Takarada, Y. Tamai, A. Tomita, Reactivities of 34 coals under steam gasification,
Fuel 64 (1985) 1438–1442.
[104] B.J. Wood, K.M. Sancier, The mechanism of the catalytic gasification of coal char: a
critical review, Catal. Rev. Sci. Eng. 26 (1984) 233–279.
[105] H. Junten, Application of catalysts to coal gasification processes. Incentives and per-
spectives, Fuel 62 (1983) 234–238.
[106] J. Kopyscinski, J. Lam, C.A. Mims, J.M. Hill, K2CO3 catalyzed steam gasification of
ash-free coal. Studying the effect of temperature on carbon conversion and gas
production rate using a drop-down reactor, Fuel 128 (2014) 210–219.
[107] J. Kopyscinski, M. Rahman, R. Gupta, C.A. Mims, J.M. Hill, K2CO3 catalyzed CO2 gas-
ification of ash-free coal. Interactions of the catalyst with carbon in N2 and CO2 at-
mosphere, Fuel 117 (2014) 1181–1189.
[108] Y. Kong, J. Kim, D. Chun, S. Lee, Y. Rhim, Lim, H. Choi, Kim, J. Yoo, Comparative stud-
ies on steam gasification of ash-free coals and their original raw coals, Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 39 (2014) 9219–9220.
[109] A. Sharma, T. Takanohashi, I. Saito, Effect of catalyst addition on gasification reac-
tivity of HyperCoal and coal with steam at 775–700 °C, Fuel 87 (2008) 2686–2690.
[110] A. Sharma, I. Saito, T. Takanohashi, Catalytic steam gasification reactivity of
hypercoals produced from different rank of coals at 600–775 °C, Energy Fuel 22
(2008) 3561–3565.
[111] J. Kim, H. Choi, J. Lim, Y. Rhim, D. Chun, S. Kim, S. Lee, J. Yoo, Hydrogen production
via steam gasification of ash free coals, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 38 (2013) 6014–6020.
[112] A. Sharma, I. Saito, T. Takanohashi, Effect of steam partial pressure on gasification
rate and gas composition of product gas from catalytic steam gasification of
hyper coal, Energy Fuel 23 (2009) 4887–4892.
[113] P. Kumar, S. Barma, M. Ranjan, S. Ghosh, V.V.S. Raju, Maximization of non-coking
coals in coke production from non-recovery coke ovens, Ironmak. Steelmak. 35
(1) (2008) 33–37.
[114] K.A. Schowalter, N.S. Boodman, The clean coke process for metallurgical coke,
Chem. Eng. Process. 70 (6) (1974) 76.
[115] S.S. Gupta, B.N. Singh, ‘Coke’, 55, JSW Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, 2005.
[116] T. Takanohashi, T. Shishido, H. Kawashima, I. Saito, Characterisation of HyperCoals
from coals of various ranks, Fuel 87 (2008) 592–598.
[117] M. Dudek, P. Tomczyk, R. Socha, M. Hamaguchi, Use of ash-free “Hyper-coal” as a
fuel for a direct carbon fuel cell with solid oxide electrolyte, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
39 (2014) 12386–12394.
[118] A.C. Chien, S.S.C. Chuang, Effect of gas flow rates and Boudouard reactions on the
performance of Ni/YSZ anode supported solid oxide fuel cells with solid carbon
fuels, J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 4719–4723.
[119] X.Y. Zhao, Q. Yao, S.Q. Li, N.S. Cai, Studies on the carbon reactions in the anode of
deposited carbon fuel cells, J. Power Sources 185 (1) (2008) 104–111.
[120] M. Chen, C. Wang, X. Niu, S. Zhao, J. Tang, B. Zhu, Carbon anode in direct carbon fuel
cell, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35 (7) (2010) 2732–2736.
[121] H.K. Ju, S.H. Uhm, J.W. Kim, R.H. Song, H.K. Choi, S.H. Lee, et al., Enhanced anode in-
terface for electrochemical oxidation of solid fuel in direct carbon fuel cells: the
role of liquid Sn in mixed state, J. Power Sources 198 (2012) 36–41.
[122] J.P. Kim, H.K. Choi, Y.J. Chang, C.H. Jeon, Feasibility of using ash-free coal in a solid-
oxide-electrolyte direct carbon fuel cell, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 37 (2012)
11401–11408.
[123] T. Gür, M. Homel, A. Virkar, High performance solid oxide fuel cell operating on dry
gasified coal, J. Power Sources 195 (2010) 1085–1090.
[124] A.C. Rady, S. Giddey, A. Kulkarni, S.P.S. Badwal, S. Bhattacharya, B.P. Ladewig, Direct
carbon fuel cell operation on brown coal, Appl. Energy 120 (2014) 56–64.
[125] H.K. Ju, J. Eoma, J.K. Lee, H. Choi, T.H. Lim, R.H. Song, J. Lee, Durable power perfor-
mance of a direct ash-free coal fuel cell, Electrochim. Acta 115 (2014) 511–517.
[126] Wibberley Louis; Treatment low rank coals, WO 2010/081191, PCT/AU2010/
000026.
[127] A. Cottrell, P. Scaife, L. Wibberley, CCSR Report: Systems Assessment of Hypercoal
for Electricity Supply in Japan, 2007 (http://www.ccsd.biz/publications/files/TA/
TA%2065%20Hypercoal_web.pdf).