Abstract: Flooding partially oxidized mine tailings for the purpose of mitigating further oxidation of sulfide minerals and generation of acid drainage is generally preceded by treatment with alkaline amendments to prevent releasing previously accumulated acidity to the water cover. This work compares the ability of calcite (CaCO3) and quicklime (CaO), two common amendments, to establish and maintain pH conditions and dissolved metal concentrations within environmentally acceptable ranges over long time periods. Although higher initial pH values were obtained with quicklime, the pH of quicklime treated tailings decreased over time. This was attributed to the low buffering capacity of quicklime treated tailings and to the consumption of hydroxide ions by incongruent dissolution of water-insoluble iron oxyhydroxysulfate minerals. In contrast, the pH of tailings treated with calcite increased initially and then remained stable at pH approximate to 6.7. This pH behavior was due to the lower reactivity of iron oxyhydroxysulfates with calcite, the increased buffering capacity provided by bicarbonate ions, and the incomplete dissolution of calcite. Overall, calcite was found preferable to quicklime for maintaining long-term neutral pH conditions in the treated tailings. With the exception of zinc, acceptable dissolved metal concentrations were achieved with calcite treated tailings.

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.