|
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.
|
|
|
Matsuoka, I. (1996). Mine drainage treatment. Shigen to Sozai = Journal of the Mining and Materials Processing Institute of Japan, 112(5), 273–281.
|
|
|
Parker, G., Noller, B., & Waite, T. D. (1999). Assessment of the use of fast-weathering silicate minerals to buffer AMD in surface waters in tropical Australia. In D. E. Goldsack, N. Belzile, P. Yearwood, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Sudbury '99; Mining and the environment II; Conference proceedings.
Abstract: Surface waters in the Pine Creek Geosyncline (located in Australia's “Top End”, defined as the area of Australia north of 15 degrees S) are characterized by their low carbonate buffering capacity. These waters are buffered by silicate weathering and hence are slightly acidic, ranging in pH from 4.0 to 6.0. The Pine Creek Geosyncline contains most of the Top Ends' economic mineral deposits and characteristically shows no correlation between carbonate minerals and sulfidic orebodies hosting gold deposits (unlike uranium deposits). Thus many gold mines do not have ready access to carbonate minerals for buffering acid mine drainage (AMD). It is possible that locally available fast-weathering silicate minerals may be used to buffer AMD seeps. The buffering intensity of silicate minerals exceeds that of carbonate minerals, but their slow dissolution kinetics has ensured that these materials have received little attention in treating AMD. In addition, carbonate mineral dissolution is retarded when contacted with intense AMD solutions due to the formation of surface coatings of iron minerals. The lower pH range of silicate mineral dissolution may prevent the formation of such coatings. The Pine Creek Geosyncline consists of a complex geochemistry, and a number of fast-weathering silicate minerals have been noted in various areas. The difficulty in assessing such minerals for use in buffering AMD is the lack of kinetic data available under conditions prevalent AMD (i.e., low pH solutions saturated with aluminium and silica). This study sets out to evaluate the applicability of using such minerals to treat AMD surface seeps.
|
|
|
Gong, Z., Huang, J., & Jiang, H. (1996). Study of comprehensive retrieval utilization and the treatment of acid mine wastewater. Zhongnan Gongye Daxue Xuebao = Journal of Central South University of Technology, 27(4), 432–435.
Abstract: Impact of precipitating on removing harmful metal ion in the acid mine wastewater with pH neutralizer and sulfide was studied. The possible way of retrieving heavy metal ion in wastewater was probed. The techniques for lime carbonate to reject iron for hydrogen sulfide to precipitate copper and for zinc-lime cream neutralization flocculation to treat, mine acid wastewater were chosen. The final water quality may reach national effluent standard; the copper content was 32% in the sulfide slag.
|
|