|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Komnitsas, K., Xenidis, A., & Tabouris, S. (2000). Composite cover for the prevention of acid mine drainage. Mining Environmental Management, 8(6), 14–17.
|
|
|
|
Boonstra, J., van Lier, R., Janssen, G., Dijkman, H., & Buisman, C. J. N. (1999). Biological treatment of acid mine drainage. In R. Amils, & A. Ballester (Eds.), Process Metallurgy, vol.9, Part B (pp. 559–567). Biohydrometallurgy and the environment toward the mining of the 21st century; proceedings of the International biohydrometallurgy symposium IBS'99, Part B, Molecular biology, biosorption, bioremediation.
|
|
|
|
Bolzicco, J., Carrera, J., & Ayora, C. (2004). Eficiencia de la barrera permeable reactiva de Aznalcollar (Sevilla, Espana) como remedio de aguas acidas de mina. Reactive permeable disposal barrier at Aznalcollar Mine, Seville, Spain; as remediation for acid mine drainage. Revista Latino-Americana de Hidrogeologia, 4, 27–34.
Abstract: As a result of the collapse of a mine tailing dam in april 1998 about 40 km of the Agrio and Guadiamar valleys were covered with a layer of pyrite sludge. Although most of the sludge was removed, a small amount remains in the soil of the Agrio valley and the aquifer remains polluted with acid water (ph<4) and metals (10 mg/L Zn, 5 mg/L Cu and Al). A permeable reactive barrier was build across the aquifer to increase the alcalinity and retain the metals. The barrier is made up of three sections of 30 m longX1.4 m thickX5 m deep (average) containing different proportions of limestone gravel, organic compost and zero-valent iron. The residence time of the water in the barrier is about two days. Within the barrier, the pH values increase to near neutral mainly due to calcite dissolution. Metals co-precipitate as oxyhydroxides, and they are also adsorbed on the organic matter surface. Down-stream the barrier, the total pollution removal is around 60-90% for Zn and Cu, and from 50 to 90% for Al and acidity.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
