|
Becker, B., Graff, M., & Näveke, R. (1997). Biological Treatment of Overburden from Lignite Opencast Mining in Order to Avoid Seepage of Acid Mine Water. Proceedings, 6th International Mine Water Association Congress, Bled, Slovenia, 2, 283–291.
|
Bertrand, S. (1997). Performance of a nanofiltration plant on hard and highly sulphated water during two years of operation. Desalination, 113(2-3), 277–281.
Abstract: A highly sulphated, hard water from a flooded iron mine was treated by nanofiltration for the production of drinking water (125 m(3)/h). This paper introduces the context and summarizes the configuration and operating conditions of the plant. The process performance in terms of product water quality and permeability during the first 2 years is presented and discussed.
|
Coulton, R., Bullen, C., & Hallett, C. (2003). The design and optimisation of active mine water treatment plants. Land Contam. Reclam., 11(2), 273–280.
Abstract: This paper provides a 'state of the art' overview of active mine water treatment. The paper discusses the process and reagent selection options commonly available to the designer of an active mine water treatment plant. Comparisons are made between each of these options, based on technical and financial criteria. The various different treatment technologies available are reviewed and comparisons made between conventional precipitation (using hydroxides, sulphides and carbonates), high density sludge processes and super-saturation precipitation. The selection of reagents (quick lime, slaked lime, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and proprietary chemicals) is considered and a comparison made on the basis of reagent cost, ease of use, final effluent quality and sludge settling criteria. The choice of oxidising agent (air, pure oxygen, peroxide, etc.) for conversion of ferrous to ferric iron is also considered. Whole life costs comparisons (capital, operational and decommissioning) are made between conventional hydroxide precipitation and the high density sludge process, based on the actual treatment requirements for four different mine waters.
|
|
Matsuoka, I. (1996). Mine drainage treatment. Shigen to Sozai = Journal of the Mining and Materials Processing Institute of Japan, 112(5), 273–281.
|
Kleinmann, R. L. P. (1990). Acid Mine Water Treatment using Engineered Wetlands. Int. J. Mine Water, 9(1-4), 269–276.
Abstract: 400 systems installed within 4 years During the last two decades, the United States mining industry has greatly increased the amount it spends on pollution control. The application of biotechnology to mine water can reduce the industry's water treatment costs (estimated at over a million dollars a day) and improve water quality in streams and rivers adversely affected by acidic mine water draining from abandoned mines. Biological treatment of mine waste water is typically conducted in a series of small excavated ponds that resemble, in a superficial way, a small marsh area. The ponds are engineered to first facilitate bacterial oxidation of iron; ideally, the water then flows through a composted organic substrate that supports a population of sulfate-reducing bacteria. The latter process raises the pH. During the past four years, over 400 wetland water treatment systems have been built on mined lands as a result of research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. In general, mine operators find that the wetlands reduce chemical treatment costs enough to repay the cost of wetland construction in less than a year. Actual rates of iron removal at field sites have been used to develop empirical sizing criteria based on iron loading and pH. If the pH is 6 or above, the wetland area (in2) required is equivalent to the iron. load (grams/day) divided by 10. Theis requirement doubles at a pH of 4 to 5. At a pH below 4, the iron load (grams/day) should be divided by 2 to estimate the area required (in2).
|
