Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–11] |
![]() |
Tarutis Jr, W. J., Stark, L. R., & Williams, F. M. (1999). Sizing and performance estimation of coal mine drainage wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 12(3-4), 353–372.
Abstract: The effectiveness of wetland treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD) was assessed using three measures of performance: treatment efficiency, area-adjusted removal, and first-order removal. Mathematical relationships between these measures were derived from simple kinetic equations. Area-adjusted removal is independent of pollutant concentration (zero-order reaction kinetics), while first-order removal is dependent on concentration. Treatment efficiency is linearly related to area-adjusted removal and exponentially related to first-order removal at constant hydraulic loading rates (flow/area). Examination of previously published data from 35 natural AMD wetlands revealed that statistically significant correlations exist between several of the performance measures for both iron and manganese removal, but these correlations are potentially spurious because these measures are derived from, and are mathematical rearrangements of, the same operating data. The use of treatment efficiency as a measure of performance between wetlands is not recommended because it is a relative measure that does not account for influent concentration differences. Area-adjusted removal accounts for mass loading effects, but it fails to separate the flow and concentration components, which is necessary if removal is first-order. Available empirical evidence suggests that AMD pollutant removal is better described by first-order kinetics. If removal is first-order, the use of area-adjusted rates for determining the wetland area required for treating relatively low pollutant concentrations will result in undersized wetlands. The effects of concentration and flow rate on wetland area predictions for constant influent loading rates also depend on the kinetics of pollutant removal. If removal is zero-order, the wetland area required to treat a discharge to meet some target effluent concentration is a decreasing linear function of influent concentration (and an inverse function of flow rate). However, if removal is first-order, the required wetland area is a non-linear function of the relative influent concentration. Further research is needed for developing accurate first-order rate constants as a function of influent water chemistry and ecosystem characteristics in order to successfully apply the first-order removal model to the design of more effective AMD wetland treatment systems.
|
Jarvis, A. P., & Younger, P. L. (1999). Design, construction and performance of a full-scare compost wetland for mine-spoil drainage treatment at quaking houses. Jciwem, 13(5), 313–318.
Abstract: Acidic spoil-heap drainage, containing elevated concentrations of iron, aluminium and manganese, has been polluting the Stanley Burn in County Durham for nearly two decades. Following the success of a pilot-scale wetland (the first application of its kind in Europe), a full-scale wetland was installed. Waste manures and composts have been used as the main substrate which is contained within embankments constructed from compacted pulverized fuel ash. The constructed wetland, which cost less than £20,000 to build, has consistently reduced iron and aluminium concentrations and has markedly lowered the acidity of the drainage. A third phase of activities at the site aims to identify and eliminate pollutant-release 'hot spots' within the spoil.
|
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.
|
Younger, P. L. (2000). The adoption and adaptation of passive treatment technologies for mine waters in the United Kingdom. Mine Water Env., 19(2), 84–97.
Abstract: During the 1990s, passive treatment technology was introduced to the United Kingdom (UK). Early hesitancy on the part of regulators and practitioners was rapidly overcome, at least for net-alkaline mine waters, so that passive treatment is now the technology of choice for the long-term remediation of such discharges, wherever land availability is not unduly limiting. Six types of passive systems are now being used in the UK for mine water treatment: ¨ aerobic, surface flow wetlands (reed-beds); ¨ anaerobic, compost wetlands with significant surface flow; ¨ mixed compost / limestone systems, with predominantly subsurface flow (so-called Reducing and Alkalinity Producing Systems (RAPS)); ¨ subsurface reactive barriers to treat acidic, metalliferous ground waters; ¨ closed-system limestone dissolution systems for zinc removal from alkaline waters; ¨ roughing filters for treating ferruginous mine waters where land availability is limited. Each of these technologies is appropriate for a different kind of mine water, or for specific hydraulic circumstances. The degree to which each type of system can be considered “proven technology” corresponds to the order in which they are listed above. Many of these passive systems have become foci for detailed scientific research, as part of a $1.5M European Commission project running from 2000 to 2003.
|
Ziemkiewicz, P. F., Skousen, J. G., & Simmons, J. (2003). Long-term Performance of Passive Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Systems. Mine Water Env., 22(3), 118–129.
Abstract: State and federal reclamation programs, mining operators, and citizen-based watershed organizations have constructed hundreds of passive systems in the eastern U.S. over the past 20 years to provide reliable, low cost, low maintenance mine water treatment in remote locations. While performance has been reported for individual systems, there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of each treatment type for a wide variety of conditions. We evaluated 83 systems: five types in eight states. Each system was monitored for influent and effluent flow, pH, net acidity, and metal concentrations. Performance was normalized among types by calculating acid load reductions and removals, and by converting construction cost, projected service life, and metric tonnes of acid load treated into cost per tonne of acid treated. Of the 83 systems, 82 reduced acid load. Average acid load reductions were 9.9 t/yr for open limestone channels (OLC), 10.1 t/yr for vertical flow wetlands (VFW), 11.9 t/yr for anaerobic wetlands (AnW), 16.6 t/yr for limestone leach beds (LSB), and 22.2 t/yr for anoxic limestone drains (ALD). Average costs for acid removal varied from $83/t/yr for ALDs to $527 for AnWs. Average acid removals were 25 g/m2/day for AnWs, 62 g/m2/day for VFWs, 22 g/day/t for OLCs, 28 g/day/t for LSBs, and 56 g/day/t for ALDs. It appears that the majority of passive systems are effective but there was wide variation within each system type, so improved reliability and efficiency are needed. This report is an initial step in determining passive treatment system performance; additional work is needed to refine system designs and monitoring.
|