|
|
Amacher, M. C., Brown, R. W., Kotuby-Amacher, J., & Willis, A. (1993). Adding sodium hydroxide to study metal removal in a stream affected by acid mine drainage. Research Paper, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 465(17).
Abstract: Fisher Creek, a stream affected by acid mine drainage in the Beartooth Mountains of Montana, was studied to determine the extent to which copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) would be removed from stream water when pH was increased by a pulse of sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Although the pH adjustment study indicated that precipitated Fe(OH) “SUB 3” (am) could rapidly remove Cu and Zn from a stream affected by acid mine drainage, the pH should be maintained in an optimal range (7 to 8.5) to maximize removal by adsorption. -from Authors
|
|
|
|
Al-Abed, S., Allen, D., Bates, E., & Reisman, D. (2002). Lime treatment lagoons technology for treating acid mine drainage from two mining sites.
|
|
|
|
Heal, K., Younger, P., Smith, K., Quinn, P., Glendinning, S., Aumônier, J., et al. (2004). (P. Jarvis Adam, A. Dudgeon Bruce, & L. Younger Paul, Eds.). mine water 2004 – Proceedings International Mine Water Association Symposium. 2: University of Newcastle.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rees, B., Bowell, R., Dey, M., & Williams, K. (2001). Passive treatment; a walk away solution? Mining Environmental Management, 9(2), 7–8.
|
|
