Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Curtis A. Palmer

Publications and source records attributed to Curtis A. Palmer.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2015

The U.S. Geological Survey coal quality (COALQUAL) database version 3.0

Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has maintained a coal quality database of national scope named USCHEM, which currently contains data for over 13,000 samples. A subset of the USCHEM database called COALQUAL Version 1.3 was initially published in 1994 and was followed by Version 2.0 in 1997. Version 3.0 of the COALQUAL database represents a major editing effort to resolve some of the DOS software limitations used by earlier versions of the database. Because of database size limits during the development of COALQUAL Version 1.3, many analyses of individual bench samples were merged into whole coal bed averages. The methodology for making these composite intervals was not consistent. Size limits also restricted the amount of georeferencing information and forced removal of qualifier notations such as "less than detection limit" (<) information, which can cause problems when using the data. A review of the original data sheets revealed that COALQUAL Version 2.0 was missing information that was needed for a complete understanding of a coal section. Another important database issue to resolve was the USGS "remnant moisture" problem. Prior to 1998, tests for remnant moisture (as-determined moisture in the sample at the time of analysis) were not performed on any USGS major, minor, or trace element coal analyses. Without the remnant moisture, it is impossible to convert the analyses to a usable basis (as-received, dry, etc.). Based on remnant moisture analyses of hundreds of samples of different ranks (and known residual moisture) reported after 1998, it was possible to develop a method to provide reasonable estimates of remnant moisture for older data to make it more useful in COALQUAL Version 3.0. In addition, COALQUAL Version 3.0 is improved by (1) adding qualifiers, including statistical programming to deal with the qualifiers; (2) clarifying the sample compositing problems; and (3) adding associated samples. Version 3.0 of COALQUAL also represents the first attempt to incorporate data verification by mathematically crosschecking certain analytical parameters. Finally, a new database system was designed and implemented to replace the outdated DOS program used in earlier versions of the database.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Chemical analyses in the World Coal Quality Inventory

The main objective of the World Coal Quality Inventory (WoCQI) was to collect and analyze a global set of samples of mined coal during a time period from about 1995 to 2006 (Finkelman and Lovern, 2001). Coal samples were collected by foreign collaborators and submitted to country specialists in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Program. However, samples from certain countries, such as Afghanistan, India, and Kyrgyzstan, were collected collaboratively in the field with USGS personnel. Samples were subsequently analyzed at two laboratories: the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory located in Denver, CO and a commercial laboratory (Geochemical Testing, Inc.) located in Somerset, PA. Thus the dataset, which is in Excel (2003) format and includes 1,580 samples from 57 countries, does not have the inter-laboratory variability that is present in many compilations. Major-, minor-, and trace-element analyses from the USGS laboratory, calculated to a consistent analytical basis (dry, whole-coal) and presented with available sample identification information, are sorted alphabetically by country name. About 70 percent of the samples also have data from the commercial laboratory, which are presented on an as-received analytical basis. The USGS initiated a laboratory review of quality assurance in 2008, covering quality control and methodology used in inorganic chemical analyses of coal, coal power plant ash, water, and sediment samples. This quality control review found that data generated by the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory from 1996 through 2006 were characterized by quality practices that did not meet USGS requirements commonly in use at the time. The most serious shortcomings were (1) the adjustment of raw sample data to standards when the instrument values for those standards exceeded acceptable limits or (2) the insufficient use of multiple standards to provide adequate quality assurance. In general, adjustment of raw data to account for instrument 'drift' is an acceptable practice within strictly defined limits. During the denoted period, USGS required that the maximum adjustment of instrument values, guided by calibration standards, was not allowed to exceed 10 percent. However, in some cases, the Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory released data that were adjusted by more than 10 percent and (or) were not constrained by an adequate number of control standards. Original instrument values no longer exist for about 80 percent of the analyses during this period; therefore, the acceptability of drift corrections for most of the samples analyzed cannot be determined. For these reasons, the WoCQI data from the USGS Inorganic Geochemistry Laboratory should be used with care. For more information, individuals may contact laboratory management at EnergyLabs@usgs.gov with specific questions about particular datasets or analytical attributes. Standard USGS sampling methods were provided and recommended to collaborators, but the analyzed samples may or may not be representative of their locale; for some samples, only limited information is available concerning sample provenance. Single samples cannot represent spatial or temporal variability within a coal area. Geochemical datasets of U.S. coals can be found in the COALQUAL database (Bragg and others, 1997) and the National Coal Quality Inventory (Hatch and others, 2006), as only non-U.S. sample data are presented in the WoCQI. Although the WoCQI does not contain worldwide coverage of coal deposits, it is truly a unique and valuable compilation. The information in the WoCQI should prove useful for identifying possible areas for future global coal research.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Arsenic in coal

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2001

Chemical analysis and modes of occurrence of selected trace elements in a Powder River basin coal and its corresponding simulated cleaned coal

This report provides semi-quantitative data on modes of occurrence of 19 elements in as-mined Powder River Basin coal and its corresponding simulated cleaned coal. The data are in support of the project "Prediction of Trace Element Removal from Coal" --a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with CQ Inc. The purpose of this CRADA is to apply modes of occurrence information to coal cleaning procedures. Techniques used in this study include sequential selective leaching procedures, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction analysis, and electron microprobe analysis. Selective leaching results indicate that greater than 40 percent of the elements Co, U, Be, Ca, Fe, Mn, Ba, Zn, Cd, Pb are associated with HCIsoluble carbonates, iron oxides, or monosulfides, greater than 40 percent of the Al, Cr and Mo are associated with HF-soluble silicates, greater than 40 percent of the Ni, Cu, As and Sb are associated with acid-insoluble phases and/or organic matter, and greater than 50 percent of the Hg is associated with HMDs-soluble pyrite. Thirty percent of the Th was leached by HCI and 30 percent of this element was leached by HF. Scanning electron microscopy indicates that quartz, kaolinite, illite and iron oxide, possibly hematite, are the major minerals present. X-ray diffraction analysis confirmed that quartz, kaolinite and hematite are present, but did not determine illite, indicating that illite in these coals is of low abundance or is poorly crystalline. Electron microprobe data indicate that concentrations of the chalcophile elements As, Se, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Cd in most pyrite grains are at or below the detection limit of about 100-200 ppm in both the as-mined coal and its corresponding simulated cleaned coal product. The results of this project should aid in the development of models for predicting the response of potentially toxic trace elements in commercial coal cleaning procedures.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1999

Characterization of fly ash from low-sulfur and high-sulfur coal sources: Partitioning of carbon and trace elements with particle size

Fly ash samples were collected in November and December of 1994, from generating units at a Kentucky power station using high- and low-sulfur feed coals. The samples are part of a two-year study of the coal and coal combustion byproducts from the power station. The ashes were wet screened at 100, 200, 325, and 500 mesh (150, 75, 42, and 25 mu m, respectively). The size fractions were then dried, weighed, split for petrographic and chemical analysis, and analyzed for ash yield and carbon content. The low-sulfur ''heavy side'' and ''light side'' ashes each have a similar size distribution in the November samples. In contrast, the December fly ashes showed the trend observed in later months, the light-side ash being finer (over 20 % more ash in the 500 mesh [25 mu m] fraction) than the heavy-side ash. Carbon tended to be concentrated in the coarse fractions in the December samples. The dominance of the 325 mesh (42 mum) fractions in the overall size analysis implies, though, that carbon in the fine sizes may be an important consideration in the utilization of the fly ash. Element partitioning follows several patterns. Volatile elements, such as Zn and As, are enriched in the finer sizes, particularly in fly ashes collected at cooler, light-side electrostatic precipitator (ESP) temperatures. The latter trend is a function of precipitation at the cooler-ESP temperatures and of increasing concentration with the increased surface area of the finest fraction. Mercury concentrations are higher in high-carbon fly ashes, suggesting Hg adsorption on the fly ash carbon. Ni and Cr are associated, in part, with the spinel minerals in the fly ash.

Energy Sources↗