Younger, P. L. (2000). The adoption and adaptation of passive treatment technologies for mine waters in the United Kingdom. Mine Water Env., 19(2), 84–97.
Abstract: During the 1990s, passive treatment technology was introduced to the United Kingdom (UK). Early hesitancy on the part of regulators and practitioners was rapidly overcome, at least for net-alkaline mine waters, so that passive treatment is now the technology of choice for the long-term remediation of such discharges, wherever land availability is not unduly limiting. Six types of passive systems are now being used in the UK for mine water treatment: ¨ aerobic, surface flow wetlands (reed-beds); ¨ anaerobic, compost wetlands with significant surface flow; ¨ mixed compost / limestone systems, with predominantly subsurface flow (so-called Reducing and Alkalinity Producing Systems (RAPS)); ¨ subsurface reactive barriers to treat acidic, metalliferous ground waters; ¨ closed-system limestone dissolution systems for zinc removal from alkaline waters; ¨ roughing filters for treating ferruginous mine waters where land availability is limited. Each of these technologies is appropriate for a different kind of mine water, or for specific hydraulic circumstances. The degree to which each type of system can be considered “proven technology” corresponds to the order in which they are listed above. Many of these passive systems have become foci for detailed scientific research, as part of a $1.5M European Commission project running from 2000 to 2003.
|
|
Younger, P. L. (1998). (L. Nel Petrus Johannes, Ed.). Mine Water and Environmental Impacts. 2: Proceedings International Mine Water Association Symposium.
|
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.
|
Banks, S. B. (2003). The Coal Authority Minewater Treatment Programme: An update on the performance of operational schemes. Land Contam. Reclam., 11(2), 161–164.
Abstract: The performance of mine water treatment schemes, operated under the Coal Authority's national Minewater Treatment Programme, is summarised. Most schemes for which data are available perform successfully and remove over 90% iron. Mean area-adjusted iron removal rates for reedbed components of treatment schemes, range from 1.5 to 5.5 g Fe/m2, with percentage iron removal rates ranging from 68% to 99%. In the majority of cases, calculated area-adjusted removal rates are limited by influent iron loadings, and the empirical sizing criterion for aerobic wetlands, based on American removal rates of 10 g Fe/m2day, remains a valuable tool in the initial stages of treatment system design and estimation of land area requirements. Where a number of schemes have required modification after becoming operational, due consideration must always be given to the potential for dramatic increases in influent iron loadings, and to how the balance between performance efficiency and aesthetic appearance can best be achieved. Continual review and feedback on the performance of treatment systems, and the problems encountered during design implementation, will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Minewater Treatment Programme within the UK.
|
Younger, P. L. (1997). Minewater treatment using wetlands. Water and Environment Manager, 2(4), 11.
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.
|
