| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Banks, D., Younger, P. L., Arnesen, R. - T., Iversen, E. R., & Banks, S. B. (1997). Mine-water chemistry: The good, the bad and the ugly. Environ. Geol., 32(3), 157–174.
Abstract: Contaminative mine drainage waters have become one of the major hydrogeological and geochemical problems arising from mankind's intrusion into the geosphere. Mine drainage waters in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom are of three main types: (1) saline formation waters; (2) acidic, heavy-metal-containing, sulphate waters derived from pyrite oxidation, and (3) alkaline, hydrogen-sulphide-containing, heavy-metal-poor waters resulting from buffering reactions and/or sulphate reduction. Mine waters are not merely to be perceived as problems, they can be regarded as industrial or drinking water sources and have been used for sewage treatment, tanning and industrial metals extraction. Mine-water problems may be addressed by isolating the contaminant source, by suppressing the reactions releasing contaminants, or by active or passive water treatment. Innovative treatment techniques such as galvanic suppression, application of bactericides, neutralising or reducing agents (pulverised fly ash-based grouts, cattle manure, whey, brewers' yeast) require further research.
|
|
Rees, B. (2005). An overview of passive mine water treatment in Europe. Mine Water Env., 24(1), 26–28.
|
|
Coulton, R. H., & Williams, K. P. (2005). Active treatment of mine water; a European perspective. Mine Water Env., 24(1), 23–26.
|
|
Cravotta, C. A., III, & Trahan, M. K. (1999). Limestone drains to increase pH and remove dissolved metals from acidic mine drainage. Appl. Geochem., 14(5), 581–606.
Abstract: Despite encrustation by Fe and Al hydroxides, limestone can be effective for remediation of acidic mine drainage (AMD). Samples of water and limestone (CaCO3) were collected periodically for 1 a at 3 identical limestone-filled drains in Pennsylvania to evaluate the attenuation of dissolved metals and the effects of pH and Fe- and Al-hydrolysis products on the rate of CaCO3 dissolution. The influent was acidic and relatively dilute (pH < 4; acidity < 90 mg) but contained 1-4 mg . L-1 of O-2, Fe3+, Al3+ and Mn2+. The total retention time in the oxic limestone drains (OLDs) ranged from 1.0 to 3.1 hr. Effluent remained oxic (O-2 > 1 mg . L-1) but was near neutral (pH = 6.2-7.0); Fe and Al decreased to less than 5% of influent concentrations. As pH increased near the inflow, hydrous Fe and Al oxides precipitated in the OLDs, The hydrous oxides, nominally Fe(OH)(3) and Al(OH)(3), were visible as loosely bound, orange-yellow coatings on limestone near the inflow. As time elapsed, Fe(OH)(3) and Al(OH)(3) particles were transported downflow. The accumulation of hydrous oxides and elevated pH (> 5) in the downflow part of the OLDs promoted sorption and coprecipitation of dissolved Mn, Cu, Co, Ni and Zn as indicated by decreased concentrations of the metals in effluent and their enrichment relative to Fe in hydrous-oxide particles and coatings on limestone. Despite thick (similar to 1 mm) hydrous-oxide coatings on limestone near the inflow, CaCO3 dissolution was more rapid near the inflow than at downflow points within and the OLD where the limestone was not coated. The high rates of CaCO3 dissolution and Fe(OH3) precipitation were associated with the relatively low pH and high Fe3+ concentration near the inflow. The rate of CaCO3 dissolution decreased with increased pH and concentrations of Ca2+ and HCO3- and decreased Pco(2). Because overall efficiency is increased by combining neutralization and hydrolysis reactions, an OLD followed by a settling pond requires less land area than needed for a two-stagetreatment system consisting of an anoxic limestone drain and oxidation-settling pond or wetland. To facilitate removal of hydrous-oxide sludge, a perforated-pipe subdrain can be installed within an OLD. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.
|
|
Schoeman, J. J., & Steyn, A. (2001). Investigation into alternative water treatment technologies for the treatment of underground mine water discharged by Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd into the Blesbokspruit in South Africa. Desalination, 133(1), 13–30.
Abstract: Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd is discharging between 80 and 100 Ml/d underground water into the Blesbokspruit. This water is pumped out of the mine to keep the underground water at such a level as to make mining possible. The water is of poor quality because it contains high TDS levels (2700-3800 mg/l) including high concentrations of iron, manganese, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and chloride. This water will adversely affect the water ecology in the Blesbokspruit, and it will significantly increase the TDS concentration of one of the major water resources if not treated prior to disposal into the stream. Therefore, alternative water desalination technologies were evaluated to estimate performance and the economics of the processes for treatment of the mine water. It was predicted that water of potable quality should be produced from the mine water with spiral reverse osmosis (SRO). It was demonstrated that it should be possible to reduce the TDS of the mine water (2000-2700-3400-4500 mg/l) to potable standards with SRO (85% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment and desalination) for a 80 Ml/d plant (worst-case water) were estimated at US$35M. Total operating costs were estimated at 88.1c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$18M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$53M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the worst-case feed water (80 Ml/d) with the EDR process. It was demonstrated that the TDS in the feed could be reduced from 4178 to 246 mg/l in the EDR product (65% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment plus desalination) to desalinate the worst-case feed water to potable quality with EDR is estimated at US$53.3M. The operational costs are estimated at 47.6 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$42M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$95.3 M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the mine water with the GYP-CIX ion- exchange process. It was demonstrated that the feed TDS (2000- 4500 mg/l) could be reduced to less than 240 mg/l (54% water recovery for the worst-case water). The capital cost for an 80 Ml/d ion-exchange plant (worst-case water) was estimated at US$26.7M (no pretreatment). Operational costs were estimated at 60.4 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$55.1M. Therefore, the total desalination costs were estimated at US$81.8M. The capital outlay for a SRO plant will be significantly less than that for either an EDR or a GYP-CIX plant. The operating costs, however, of the RO plant are significantly higher than for the other two processes. Potable water sales, however, will bring more in for the RO process than for the other two processes because a higher water recovery can be obtained with RO. The operating costs minus the savings in water sales were estimated at 17.2; 6.7 and US$8.6M/y for the RO, EDR and GYP-CIX processes, respectively (worst case). Therefore, the operational costs of the EDR and GYP-CIX processes are the lowest if the sale of water is taken into consideration. This may favour the EDR and GYP-CIX processes for the desalination of the mine water.
|