ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Discrepancy between Coal Ash from Muffle, Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB), and Pulverized Coal (PC) Furnaces, with a Focus on the Recovery of Iron and Rare Earth Elements.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Different Types of Coal Fly Ash by Direct Bioleaching.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review on Gallium in Coal and Coal Waste Materials: Exploring Strategies for Hydrometallurgical Metal Recovery.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review of the Preparation and Application of Porous Materials for Typical Coal-Based Solid Waste.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Current State of Coal Fly Ash Utilization: Characterization and Application.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Coal ash (CA) is not only one of the most solid wastes from combustion, easily resulting in a series of concerns, but it is also an artificial deposit with considerable metals, such as iron and rare earth. The variation in the coal ash characteristics due to the origins, combustion process, and even storage environment has been hindering the metal utilization from coal ash. In this study, three ash sample from lab muffle, circulating fluidized bed (CFB), and pulverized coal (PC) furnace was derived for the discrepancy study from the combustion furnace, including properties, iron, and rare earth recovery. The origins of the coal feed samples have more of an effect on their properties than combustion furnaces. Magnetic separation is suitable for coal ash from PC because of the magnetite product, and the iron content is 58% in the Mag-1 fraction, with a yield of 3%. The particles in CA from CFB appear irregular and fragmental, while those from PC appear spherical with a smooth surface. The results of sequential chemical extraction and observation both indicated that the aluminosilicate phase plays an essential role in rare earth occurrences. Rare earth in CA from muffling and CFB is facilely leached, with a recovery of approximately 50%, which is higher than that from PC ash. This paper aims to offer a reference to easily understand the difference in metal recovery from coal ash.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.