| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Younger, P.L. |
|
| |
Title |
Minewater treatment using wetlands |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
1997 |
Publication |
Water and Environment Manager |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
2 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages  |
11 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Wetlands and estuaries geographical abstracts: physical geography hydrology (71 6 8) wetlands mine drainage water treatment |
|
| |
Abstract |
Experiences gained by the UK Mining Industry and effluent treatment companies in theuse of wetlands for treating minewaters are discussed. Discharges from abandoned mines is a major cause of freshwater pollution in some regions. Key topics relating to the use of wetlands for minewater treatment will be discussed at a CIWEM conference in Newcastle on 5 September 1997. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
Minewater treatment using wetlands; 0283405; Geobase |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
CBU @ c.wolke @ 10624 |
Serial |
200 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Rees, B.; Bowell, R.; Dey, M.; Williams, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Passive treatment; a walk away solution? |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2001 |
Publication |
Mining Environmental Management |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
7-8 |
|
| |
Keywords |
acid mine drainage; acidification; alkalinity; bacteria; bioremediation; buffers; chemical reactions; cost; effluents; ferric iron; ferrous iron; filtration; ground water; hydrolysis; iron; metals; monitoring; oxidation; permeability; pH; pollution; remediation; substrates; sulfate ion; suspended materials; water management; water pollution; water quality; water treatment; wetlands 22, Environmental geology |
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0969-4218 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
Passive treatment; a walk away solution?; 2001-050826; References: 3; illus. United Kingdom (GBR); GeoRef; English |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
CBU @ c.wolke @ 5722 |
Serial |
265 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Taylor, J.; Waters, J. |
|
| |
Title |
Treating ARD; how, when, where and why |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Mining Environmental Management |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
11 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
6-9 |
|
| |
Keywords |
acid mine drainage; acid rock drainage; acidification; alkalinity; carbonate rocks; chemical properties; chemical reactions; coal; disposal barriers; economics; flocculation; ground water; heavy metals; human activity; ion exchange; limestone; mines; oxidation; oxides; permeability; pollution; porosity; pyrolusite; remediation; sedimentary rocks; surface water; waste disposal; waste management; water pollution; water treatment; wetlands 22, Environmental geology |
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0969-4218 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
Treating ARD; how, when, where and why; 2004-045038; References: 8; illus. incl. 2 tables United Kingdom (GBR); GeoRef; English |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
CBU @ c.wolke @ 5528 |
Serial |
225 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Johnson, D.B.; Hallberg, K.B. |
|
| |
Title |
Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2005 |
Publication |
Science of the Total Environment |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
338 |
Issue |
1-2 |
Pages |
3-14 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Wetlands and estuaries Pollution and waste management non radioactive geographical abstracts: physical geography hydrology (71 6 8) geological abstracts: environmental geology (72 14 2) biological method pollutant removal water treatment wastewater bioremediation constructed wetland acid mine drainage Cornwall England England United Kingdom Western Europe Europe Eurasia Eastern Hemisphere World Acid mine drainage Bioreactors Bioremediation Sulfidogenesis Wetlands Wheal Jane |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0048-9697 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
Feb. 01; Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review; file:///C:/Dokumente%20und%20Einstellungen/Stefan/Eigene%20Dateien/Artikel/10052.pdf; Science Direct |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
CBU @ c.wolke @ 17464 |
Serial |
47 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Gusek, J.J. |
|
| |
Title |
|
Type |
Book Whole |
| |
Year |
2002 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
1-14 [Cd-Rom] |
|
| |
Keywords |
Constructed wetlands acid mine drainage heavy metals sulfate reduction |
|
| |
Abstract |
There are basically two kinds of biological passive treatment cells for treating mine drainage. Aerobic Cells, containing cattails and other plants, are typically applicable to coal mine drainage where iron and manganese and mild acidity are problematic. Anaerobic Cells or Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactors are typically applicable to metal mine drainage with high acidity and a wide range of metals. Most passive treatment systems employ one or both of these cell types. The track record of aerobic cells in treating coal mine drainage is impressive, especially in the eastern coalfields. Sulfate-reducing bioreactors have tremendous potential at metal mines and coal mines, but have not seen as wide an application. This paper presents the advantages of sulfate-reducing bioreactors in treating mine drainage, including: the ability to work in cold, high altitude environments, handle high flow rates of mildly affected ARD in moderate acreage footprints, treat low pH acid drainage with a wide range of metals and anions including uranium, selenium, and sulfate, accept acid drainagecontaining dissolved aluminum without clogging with hydroxide sludge, have life-cycle costs on the order of $0.50 per thousand gallons, and be integrated into “semi-passive” systems that might be powered by liquid organic wastes. Sulfate reducing bioreactors might not be applicable in every abandoned mine situation. However a phased design program of laboratory, bench, and pilot scale testing has been shown to increase the likelihood of a successful design. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
Park City |
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
Proceedings, Annual Conference – National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs |
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor Design and Operating Issues – Is this the Passive Treatment Technology for your Mine Drainage?; 2; VORHANDEN | AMD ISI | Wolkersdorfer; als Datei vorhanden 4 Abb. |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
CBU @ c.wolke @ 17348 |
Serial |
364 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
