|
|
Agency, U. S. E. P. (2006). Compost-free bioreactor treatment of acid rock drainage Leviathan Mine, California : innovative technology evaluation report, 2. Cincinnati, OH.: Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
|
|
|
|
Akcil, A., & Koldas, S. (2006). Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and case studies. J. Cleaner Prod., 14(12-13), 1139–1145.
Abstract: This paper describes Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) generation and its associated technical issues. As AMD is recognized as one of the more serious environmental problems in the mining industry, its causes, prediction and treatment have become the focus of a number of research initiatives commissioned by governments, the mining industry, universities and research establishments, with additional inputs from the general public and environmental groups. In industry, contamination from AMD is associated with construction, civil engineering mining and quarrying activities. Its environmental impact, however, can be minimized at three basic levels: through primary prevention of the acid-generating process; secondary control, which involves deployment of acid drainage migration prevention measures; and tertiary control, or the collection and treatment of effluent.
|
|
|
|
Sheoran, A. S., & Sheoran, V. (2006). Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wetlands: A critical review. Minerals Engineering, 19(2), 105–116.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is one of the most significant environmental challenges facing the mining industry worldwide. Water infiltrating through the metal sulphide minerals, effluents of mineral processing plants and seepage from tailing dams becomes acidic and this acidic nature of the solution allows the metals to be transported in their most soluble form. The conventional treatment technologies used in the treatment of acid mine drainage are expensive both in terms of operating and capital costs. One of the methods of achieving compliance using passive treatment systems at low cost, producing treated water pollution free, and fostering a community responsibility for acid mine water treatment involves the use of wetland treatment system. These wetlands absorb and bind heavy metals and make them slowly concentrated in the sedimentary deposits to become part of the geological cycle. In this paper a critical review of the heavy metal removal mechanism involving various physical, chemical and biological processes, which govern wetland performance, have been made. This information is important for the siting and use of wetlands for remediation of heavy metals.
|
|
|
|
Potgieter-Vermaak, S. S., Potgieter, J. H., Monama, P., & Van Grieken, R. (2006). Comparison of limestone, dolomite and fly ash as pre-treatment agents for acid mine drainage. Minerals Engineering, 19(5), 454–462.
Abstract: The physical, chemical and biological nature of Vaal Dam water, the main source of water in Gauteng, South Africa, is often affected by underground water pollution (acid mine water) and industrial effluents. The ecological significance and detrimental effects necessitate investigations into treating the water prior to discharge into public streams. Although several acid mine water treatment techniques and methods exist, they all have certain disadvantages. Lime treatment is the most common approach. In this investigation, limestone, dolomite and fly ash were selected as pre-treatment agents based on their low cost. Simulated acid mine water containing these agents was tested using a Jar Test apparatus. Samples were analyzed before and after treatment for pH, ferrous, ferric, calcium, magnesium and sulphate ions. The study demonstrated that the quality of the water improved with an increase in the amount and surface area of the raw material dosed and an increase in contact time. It was also influenced by the chemical composition of the acid mine water and aeration. Chemical cost savings of 38% are achieved when lime is replaced with limestone, and cost savings of 23% and 48% can be accomplished when limestone is substituted with dolomite and fly ash respectively. This could result in significant savings to the gold and coal mining industries, and could lead to a mutual benefit/gain between industrialists/polluters and the public.
|
|
|
|
Conca, J. L., & Wright, J. (2006). An Apatite II permeable reactive barrier to remediate groundwater containing Zn, Pb and Cd. Appl. Geochem., 21(12), 2188–2200.
Abstract: Phosphate-induced metal stabilization involving the reactive medium Apatite II(TM) [Ca10-xNax(PO4)6-x(CO3)x(OH)2], where x < 1, was used in a subsurface permeable reactive barrier (PRB) to treat acid mine drainage in a shallow alluvial groundwater containing elevated concentrations of Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu, SO4 and NO3. The groundwater is treated in situ before it enters the East Fork of Ninemile Creek, a tributary to the Coeur d'Alene River, Idaho. Microbially mediated SO4 reduction and the subsequent precipitation of sphalerite [ZnS] is the primary mechanism occurring for immobilization of Zn and Cd. Precipitation of pyromorphite [Pb10(PO4)6(OH,Cl)2] is the most likely mechanism for immobilization of Pb. Precipitation is occurring directly on the original Apatite II. The emplaced PRB has been operating successfully since January of 2001, and has reduced the concentrations of Cd and Pb to below detection (2 μg L-1), has reduced Zn to near background in this region (about 100 μg L-1), and has reduced SO4 by between 100 and 200 mg L-1 and NO3 to below detection (50 μg L-1). The PRB, filled with 90 tonnes of Apatite II, has removed about 4550 kg of Zn, 91 kg of Pb and 45 kg of Cd, but 90% of the immobilization is occurring in the first 20% of the barrier, wherein the reactive media now contain up to 25 wt% Zn. Field observations indicate that about 30% of the Apatite II material is spent (consumed).
|
|
