|
|
Murdock, D. J. (1995). Treatment of acid mine drainage by the high density sludge process. Sudbury '95 – Mining and the Environment, Conference Proceedings, Vols 1-3, , 431–439.
|
|
|
|
Groudev, S. N. (2002). Treatment of acid mine drainage by a natural wetland. Wetlands and Remediation Ii, , 133–139.
Abstract: Acid drainage waters generated in the copper ore deposit Elshitza. Central Bulgaria, were treated by a natural wetland located in the deposit. The waters had a pH in the range of about 2.5 – 3.5 and contained copper, cadmium, arsenic, iron, manganese and sulphates as main pollutants. The watercourse through the wetland covered a distance of about 100 in and the water flow rate varied in the range of about 0.5 – 2.0 1/s. The wetland was characterized by an abundant water and emergent vegetation and a diverse microflora. Phragmites communis was the prevalent plant species in the wetland but species of the genera Scirpus, Typha, Juncus, Carex and Poa as well as different algae were also well present. It was found that an efficient removal of the pollutants was achieved and their residual concentrations in the wetland effluents were decreased below the relevant permissible levels for water intended for use in the agriculture and/or industry. The removal was clue to different processes but the microbial dissimilatory sulphate reduction and the sorption of pollutants by the organic matter and clay minerals present in the wetland played the main role. Negative effects of the pollutants on the growth and activity of the indigenous plant and microbial communities were not observed.
|
|
|
|
Wolkersdorfer, C. (2006). Tracer tests as a mean of remediation procedures in mines. Uranium in the Environment: Mining Impact and Consequences, , 817–822.
Abstract: Mining usually causes severe anthropogenic changes by which the ground- or surface water might be significantly polluted. One of the main problems in the mining industry are acid mine drainage, the drainage of heavy metals, and the prediction of mine water rebound after mine closure. Consequently, the knowledge about the hydraulic behaviour of the mine water within a flooded mine might significantly reduce the costs of mine closure and remediation. In the literature, the difficulties in evaluating the hydrodynamics of flooded mines are well described, although only few tracer tests in flooded mines have been published so far. Most tracer tests linked to mine water problems were related to either pollution of the aquifer or radioactive waste disposal and not the mine water itself.
|
|
|
|
McGregor, R. (2000). The use of an in-situ porous reactive wall to remediate a heavy metal plume. ICARD 2000, Vols I and II, Proceedings, , 1227–1232.
Abstract: The oxidation of sulfide minerals at an ore transfer location in Western Canada has resulted in widespread contamination of underlying soil and groundwater. The oxidation of sulfide minerals has released sulfate [SO4] and heavy metals including cadmium [Cd], copper [Cu], nickel [Ni], lead [Pb], and zinc [Zn] into the groundwater. A compost-based sulfate-reducing reactive wall was installed in the path of the plume in an attempt to reduce the potential impact of the heavy metals on a down-gradient marine inlet. Monitoring of the reactive wall over a 21-month period has shown that Cu concentrations decrease from over 4000 mug/L to less than 5 mug/L. Cadmium, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations also show similar decreases with treated concentrations generally being observed near or below detection limits.
|
|
|
|
Banks, S. B. (2003). The UK coal authority minewater-treatment scheme programme: Performance of operational systems. Jciwem, 17(2), 117–122.
Abstract: This paper summarises the performance of minewater-treatment schemes which are operated under the Coal Authority's National Minewater Treatment Programme. Commonly-used design criteria and performance indicators are briefly discussed, and the performance of wetland systems which are operated by the Coal Authority is reviewed. Most schemes for which data are available remove more than 90% iron, and average area-adjusted iron-removal rates range from 1.5 to 5.5 g Fe/m(2). d. These values, which are based on performance calculations, can be distorted by several factors, including the practice of maximising wetland areas to make best use of available land. Removal rates are limited by influent iron loadings, and area-adjusted iron-removal rates should be used with caution when assessing wetland performance. Sizing criteria for all types of treatment system might be refined if more detailed data become available.
|
|
