|
|
Groudev, S. N., Georgiev, P. S., Spasova, I. I., & Nicolova, M. N. (2000). In situ treatment of mine waters by means of a permeable barrier. Groundwater 2000, , 417–418.
Abstract: Acid ground waters contaminated with radioactive elements (U, Ra, Th), toxic heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Mn, Fe), arsenic and sulphates were treated by means of a permeable barrier. The barrier was filled with a mixture of biodegradable solid organic substrates (spent mushroom compost, sawdust and cow manure) and was inhabited by a mixed microbial community consisting of sulphate-reducing bacteria and other metabolically interdependent microorganisms. An efficient removal of the pollutants was achieved by this barrier during the different climatic seasons, even at ambient temperatures close to degrees C. The microbial dissimilatory sulphate reduction and the sorption of pollutants by the organic matter in the barrier were the main processes involved in this removal.
|
|
|
|
Stewart, D., Norman, T., Cordery-Cotter, S., Kleiner, R., Sweeney, E., & Nelson, J. D. (1997). Utilization of a ceramic membrane for acid mine drainage treatment. Tailings and Mine Waste '97, , 453–460.
Abstract: BASX Systems LLC has developed a treatment system based on ceramic membranes for the removal of heavy metals from an acid mine drainage stream. This stream also contained volatile organic compounds that were required to be removed prior to discharge to a Colorado mountain stream. The removal of heavy metals was greater than 99% in most cases. A decrease of 30% in chemicals required for treatment and a reduction by more than 75% in labor over a competing technology were achieved. These decreases were obtained for operating temperatures of less than 5 degrees C. This system of ceramic microfiltration is capable of treating many different types of acid mine waste streams for heavy metals removal.
|
|
|
|
Dugan, P. R. (1987). Prevention of formation of acid drainage from high-sulfur coal refuse by inhibition of iron- and sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms. II. Inhibition in run of mine refuse under simulated field conditions. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 29(1), 6.
|
|
|
|
Van Hille, R. P., Boshoff, G. A., Rose, P. D., & Duncan, J. R. (1999). A continuous process for the biological treatment of heavy metal contaminated acid mine water. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 27(1-2), 157–167.
Abstract: Alkaline precipitation of heavy metals from acidic water streams is a popular and long standing treatment process. While this process is efficient it requires the continuous addition of an alkaline material, such as lime. In the long term or when treating large volumes of effluent this process becomes expensive, with costs in the mining sector routinely exceeding millions of rands annually. The process described below utilises alkalinity generated by the alga Spirulina sp., in a continuous system to precipitate heavy metals. The design of the system separates the algal component from the metal containing stream to overcome metal toxicity. The primary treatment process consistently removed over 99% of the iron (98.9 mg/l) and between 80 and 95% of the zinc (7.16 mg/l) and lead (2.35 mg/l) over a 14-day period (20 l effluent treated). In addition the pH of the raw effluent was increased from 1.8 to over 7 in the post-treatment stream. Secondary treatment and polishing steps depend on the nature of the effluent treated. In the case of the high sulphate effluent the treated stream was passed into an anaerobic digester at a rate of 4 l/day. The combination of the primary and secondary treatments effected a removal of over 95% of all metals tested for as well as a 90% reduction in the sulphate load. The running cost of such a process would be low as the salinity and nutrient requirements for the algal culture could be provided by using tannery effluent or a combination of saline water and sewage. This would have the additional benefit of treating either a tannery or sewage effluent as part of an integrated process.
|
|
|
|
Evangelou, V. P. (2001). Pyrite microencapsulation technologies: Principles and potential field application. Ecological Engineering, 17(2-3), 165–178.
Abstract: In nature, pyrite is initially oxidized by atmospheric O2, releasing acidity and Fe2+. At pH below 3.5, Fe2+ is rapidly oxidized by T. ferrooxidans to Fe3+, which oxidizes pyrite at a much faster rate than O2. Commonly, limestone is used to prevent pyrite oxidation. This approach, however, has a short span of effectiveness because after treatment the surfaces of pyrite particles remain exposed to atmospheric O2 and oxidation continuous abiotically. Currently, a proposed mechanism for explaining non-microbial pyrite oxidation in high pH environments is the involvement of OH- in an inner-sphere electron-OH exchange between pyrite/surface-exposed disulfide and pyrite/surface-Fe(III)(OH)n3-n complex and/or formation of a weak electrostatic pyrite/surface-CO3 complex which enhances the chemical oxidation of Fe2+. The above infer that limestone application to pyritic geologic material treats only the symptoms of pyrite oxidation through acid mine drainage neutralization but accelerates non-microbial pyrite oxidation. Therefore, only a pyrite/surface coating capable of inhibiting O2 diffusion is expected to control long-term oxidation and acid drainage production. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility in controlling pyrite oxidation by creating, on pyrite surfaces, an impermeable phosphate or silica coating that would prevent either O2 or Fe3+ from further oxidizing pyrite. The mechanism underlying this coating approach involves leaching mine waste with a coating solution composed of H2O2 or hypochlorite, KH2PO4 or H4SiO4, and sodium acetate (NaAC) or limestone. During the leaching process, H2O2 or hypochlorite oxidizes pyrite and produces Fe3+ so that iron phosphate or iron silicate precipitates as a coating on pyrite surfaces. The purpose of NaAC or limestone is to eliminate the inhibitory effect of the protons (produced during pyrite oxidation) on the precipitation of iron phosphate or silicate and to generate iron-oxide pyrite coating, which is also expected to inhibit pyrite oxidation. The results showed that iron phosphate or silicate coating could be established on pyrite by leaching it with a solution composed of: (1) H2O2 0.018-0.16 M; (2) phosphate or silicate 10-3 to 10-2 M; (3) coating-solution pH [approximate]5-6; and (4) NaAC as low as 0.01 M. Leachates from column experiments also showed that silicate coatings produced the least amount of sulfate relative to the control, limestone and phosphate treatments. On the other hand, limestone maintained the leachate near neutral pH but produced more sulfate than the control.
|
|
