|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
