|
Hellier, W. W., Giovannitti, E. F., & Slack, P. T. (1994). Best professional judgement analysis for constructed wetlands as a best available technology for the treatment of post-mining groundwater seeps. In Special Publication – United States. Bureau of Mines, Report: BUMINES-SP-06A-94 (pp. 60–69). Proceedings of the International land reclamation and mine drainage conference and Third international conference on The abatement of acidic drainage; Volume 1 of 4; Mine drainage.
|
Jarvis, A. P., & Younger, P. L. (1999). Design, construction and performance of a full-scare compost wetland for mine-spoil drainage treatment at quaking houses. Jciwem, 13(5), 313–318.
Abstract: Acidic spoil-heap drainage, containing elevated concentrations of iron, aluminium and manganese, has been polluting the Stanley Burn in County Durham for nearly two decades. Following the success of a pilot-scale wetland (the first application of its kind in Europe), a full-scale wetland was installed. Waste manures and composts have been used as the main substrate which is contained within embankments constructed from compacted pulverized fuel ash. The constructed wetland, which cost less than £20,000 to build, has consistently reduced iron and aluminium concentrations and has markedly lowered the acidity of the drainage. A third phase of activities at the site aims to identify and eliminate pollutant-release 'hot spots' within the spoil.
|
Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2005). Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 338(1-2), 3–14.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) causes environmental pollution that affects many countries having historic or current mining industries. Preventing the formation or the migration of AMD from its source is generally considered to be the preferable option, although this is not feasible in many locations, and in such cases, it is necessary to collect, treat, and discharge mine water. There are various options available for remediating AMD, which may be divided into those that use either chemical or biological mechanisms to neutralise AMD and remove metals from solution. Both abiotic and biological systems include those that are classed as “active” (i.e., require continuous inputs of resources to sustain the process) or “passive” (i.e., require relatively little resource input once in operation). This review describes the current abiotic and bioremediative strategies that are currently used to mitigate AMD and compares the strengths and weaknesses of each. New and emerging technologies are also described. In addition, the factors that currently influence the selection of a remediation system, and how these criteria may change in the future, are discussed.
|
Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2002). Pitfalls of passive mine water treatment. Reviews in Environmental Science & Biotechnology, 1(5), 335–343.
Abstract: Passive (wetland) treatment of waters draining abandoned and derelict mine sites has a number of detrac-tions. Detailed knowledge of many of the fundamental processes that dictate the performance and longevity of constructed systems is currently very limited and therefore more research effort is needed before passive treatment becomes an “off-the-shelf” technology.
|
|
Karathanasis, A. D., & Barton, C. D. (1999). The revival of a failed constructed wetland treating a high Fe load AMD. In K. S. Sajwan, A. K. Alva, & R. F. Keefer (Eds.), Proceedings; biogeochemistry of trace elements in coal and coal combustion byproducts. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
|
