|
Anonymous. (1998). Remediation of historical mine sites; technical summaries and bibliography. Littleton: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
|
LaPointe, F., Fytas, K., & McConchie, D. (2005). Using permeable reactive barriers for the treatment of acid rock drainage. International journal of surface mining, reclamation and environment, 19(1), 57–65.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the most serious environmental problem facing the Canadian mineral industry today. It results from oxidation of sulphide minerals (e.g. pyrite or pyrrhotite) contained in mine waste or mine tailings and is characterized by acid effluents rich in heavy metals that are released into the environment. A new acid remediation technology is presented, by which metallurgical residues from the aluminium extraction industry are used to construct permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) to treat acid mine effluents. This technology is very promising for treating acid mine effluents in order to decrease their harmful environmental effects
|
|
Fyson, A., Nixdorf, B., & Steinberg, C. E. W. (1998). Manipulation of the sediment-water interface of extremely acidic mining lakes with potatoes; laboratory studies with intact sediment cores Geochemical and microbial processes in sediments and at the sediment-water interface of acidic mining lakes. In S. Peiffer (Ed.), Water, Air and Soil Pollution (pp. 353–363). 108.
|
Ntengwe, F. W. (2005). An overview of industrial wastewater treatment and analysis as means of preventing pollution of surface and underground water bodies – The case of Nkana Mine in Zambia. Phys. Chem. Earth, 30(11-16 Spec. Iss.), 726–734.
Abstract: The wastewaters coming from mining operations usually have low pH (acidic) values and high levels of metal pollutants depending on the type of metals being extracted. If unchecked, the acidity and metals will have an impact on the surface water. The organisms and plants can adversely be affected and this renders both surface and underground water unsuitable for use by the communities. The installation of a treatment plant that can handle the wastewaters so that pH and levels of pollutants are reduced to acceptable levels provides a solution to the prevention of polluting surface and underground waters and damage to ecosystems both in water and surrounding soils. The samples were collected at five points and analyzed for acidity, total suspended solids, and metals. It was found that the pH fluctuated between pH 2 when neutralization was forgotten and pH 11 when neutralization took place. The levels of metals that could cause impacts to the water ecosystem were found to be high when the pH was low. High levels of metals interfere with multiplication of microorganisms, which help in the natural purification of water in stream and river bodies. The fish and hyacinth placed in water at the two extremes of pH 2 and pH 11 could not survive indicating that wastewaters from mining areas should be adequately treated and neutralized to pH range 6-9 if life in natural waters is to be sustained. < copyright > 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
Tarutis Jr, W. J., Stark, L. R., & Williams, F. M. (1999). Sizing and performance estimation of coal mine drainage wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 12(3-4), 353–372.
Abstract: The effectiveness of wetland treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD) was assessed using three measures of performance: treatment efficiency, area-adjusted removal, and first-order removal. Mathematical relationships between these measures were derived from simple kinetic equations. Area-adjusted removal is independent of pollutant concentration (zero-order reaction kinetics), while first-order removal is dependent on concentration. Treatment efficiency is linearly related to area-adjusted removal and exponentially related to first-order removal at constant hydraulic loading rates (flow/area). Examination of previously published data from 35 natural AMD wetlands revealed that statistically significant correlations exist between several of the performance measures for both iron and manganese removal, but these correlations are potentially spurious because these measures are derived from, and are mathematical rearrangements of, the same operating data. The use of treatment efficiency as a measure of performance between wetlands is not recommended because it is a relative measure that does not account for influent concentration differences. Area-adjusted removal accounts for mass loading effects, but it fails to separate the flow and concentration components, which is necessary if removal is first-order. Available empirical evidence suggests that AMD pollutant removal is better described by first-order kinetics. If removal is first-order, the use of area-adjusted rates for determining the wetland area required for treating relatively low pollutant concentrations will result in undersized wetlands. The effects of concentration and flow rate on wetland area predictions for constant influent loading rates also depend on the kinetics of pollutant removal. If removal is zero-order, the wetland area required to treat a discharge to meet some target effluent concentration is a decreasing linear function of influent concentration (and an inverse function of flow rate). However, if removal is first-order, the required wetland area is a non-linear function of the relative influent concentration. Further research is needed for developing accurate first-order rate constants as a function of influent water chemistry and ecosystem characteristics in order to successfully apply the first-order removal model to the design of more effective AMD wetland treatment systems.
|
