Mustikkamaki, U. - P. (2000). Metallipitoisten vesien biologisesta kasittelysta Outokummun kaivoksilla. Metal content treated with biological methods at the Outokummun operation. Vuoriteollisuus = Bergshanteringen, 58(1), 44–47.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is one of the most serious environmental problems in the metal-mining industry. AMD is formed by the chemical and bacterial oxidation of sulphide minerals, and it is characterized by low pH values and high sulphate and metals content. The most common method to treat AMD is chemical neutralization. The chemical treatment requires high capital and operating costs and its use is problematic at the closed mines sites. Outokumpu has studied and used sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) as an alternative method for the treatment of AMD. SRB existing in many natural anaerobic aqueous environments can reduce sulphate to sulphide which precipitates metals as extremely insoluble metal sulphides. Full scale experiments were begun in summer 1995 in the Ruostesuo open pit (depth 46 m) by adding liquid manure as a source of bacteria and press-juice as a growth substrate. The average Zn content of the whole column has decreased from 3,5 mg/l to 0,8 mg/l and below 25 m zinc is 0 mg/l. Similar results have been reached with nickel in the Kotalahti old nickel mine, where bacteria were brought in 1996. We have found that the same bacterial mechanism acts in peat-limestone filters, which Outokumpu has built at several mine sites since 1993.
|
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.
|
Wingenfelder, U., Hansen, C., Furrer, G., & Schulin, R. (2005). Removal of heavy metals from mine waters by natural zeolites. Environ Sci Technol, ES & T, 39(12), 4606–4613.
|
Robinson, J. D. F. (1998). Wetland treatment of coal-mine drainage. Coal International, 246(3), 114–115.
|
Adam, K. (2003). Solid wastes management in sulphide mines: From waste characterisation to safe closure of disposal sites. Minerals and Energy Raw Materials Report, 18(4), 25–35.
Abstract: Environmentally compatible Waste Management schemes employed by the European extractive industry for the development of new projects, and applied in operating sulphide mines, are presented in this study. Standard methodologies used to assess the geotechnical and geochemical properties of the solid wastes stemming from mining and processing of sulphidic metal ores are firstly given. Based on waste properties, the measures applied to ensure the environmentally safe recycling and disposal of sulphidic wastes are summarised. Emphasis is given on the novel techniques developed to effectively prevent and mitigate the acid drainage phenomenon from sulphidic mine wastes and tailings. Remediation measures taken to minimise the impact from waste disposal sites in the post-closure period are described.
|