| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> |
|
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).
|
|
LaPointe, F., Fytas, K., & McConchie, D. (2005). Using permeable reactive barriers for the treatment of acid rock drainage. International journal of surface mining, reclamation and environment, 19(1), 57–65.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the most serious environmental problem facing the Canadian mineral industry today. It results from oxidation of sulphide minerals (e.g. pyrite or pyrrhotite) contained in mine waste or mine tailings and is characterized by acid effluents rich in heavy metals that are released into the environment. A new acid remediation technology is presented, by which metallurgical residues from the aluminium extraction industry are used to construct permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) to treat acid mine effluents. This technology is very promising for treating acid mine effluents in order to decrease their harmful environmental effects
|
|
Adam, K. (2003). Solid wastes management in sulphide mines: From waste characterisation to safe closure of disposal sites. Minerals and Energy Raw Materials Report, 18(4), 25–35.
Abstract: Environmentally compatible Waste Management schemes employed by the European extractive industry for the development of new projects, and applied in operating sulphide mines, are presented in this study. Standard methodologies used to assess the geotechnical and geochemical properties of the solid wastes stemming from mining and processing of sulphidic metal ores are firstly given. Based on waste properties, the measures applied to ensure the environmentally safe recycling and disposal of sulphidic wastes are summarised. Emphasis is given on the novel techniques developed to effectively prevent and mitigate the acid drainage phenomenon from sulphidic mine wastes and tailings. Remediation measures taken to minimise the impact from waste disposal sites in the post-closure period are described.
|
|
Benner, S. G., Blowes, D. W., & Ptacek, C. J. (1997). A full-scale porous reactive wall for prevention of acid mine drainage. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 17(4), 99–107.
Abstract: The generation and release of acidic drainage containing high concentrations of dissolved metals from decommissioned mine wastes is an environmental problem of international scale. A potential solution to many acid drainage problem is the installation of permeable reactive walls into aquifers affected by drainage water derived from mine waste materials. A permeable reactive wall installed into an aquifer impacted by low-quality mine drainage waters was installed in August 1995 at the Nickel Rim mine site near Sudbury, Ontario. The reactive mixture, containing organic matter, was designed to promote bacterially mediated sulfate reduction and subsequent metal sulfide precipitation. The reactive wall is installed to an average depth of 12 feet (3.6 m) and is 49 feet (15 m) long perpendicular to ground water flow. The wall thickness (flow path length) is 13 feet (4 m). Initial results, collected nine months after installation, indicate that sulfate reduction and metal sulfide precipitation is occurring. Comparing water entering the wall to treated water existing the wall, sulfate concentrations decrease from 2400 to 4600 mg/L to 200 to 3600 mg/L; Fe concentration decrease from 250 to 1300 mg/L to 1.0 to 40 mg/L, pH increases from 5.8 to 7.0; and alkalinity (as CaCO<inf>3</inf>) increases from 0 to 50 mg/L to 600 to 2000 mg/L. The reactive wall has effectively removed the capacity of the ground water to generate acidity on discharge to the surface. Calculations based on comparison to previously run laboratory column experiments indicate that the reactive wall has potential to remain effective for at least 15 years.
|
|
Coulton, R., Bullen, C., & Hallett, C. (2003). The design and optimisation of active mine water treatment plants. Land Contam. Reclam., 11(2), 273–280.
Abstract: This paper provides a 'state of the art' overview of active mine water treatment. The paper discusses the process and reagent selection options commonly available to the designer of an active mine water treatment plant. Comparisons are made between each of these options, based on technical and financial criteria. The various different treatment technologies available are reviewed and comparisons made between conventional precipitation (using hydroxides, sulphides and carbonates), high density sludge processes and super-saturation precipitation. The selection of reagents (quick lime, slaked lime, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and proprietary chemicals) is considered and a comparison made on the basis of reagent cost, ease of use, final effluent quality and sludge settling criteria. The choice of oxidising agent (air, pure oxygen, peroxide, etc.) for conversion of ferrous to ferric iron is also considered. Whole life costs comparisons (capital, operational and decommissioning) are made between conventional hydroxide precipitation and the high density sludge process, based on the actual treatment requirements for four different mine waters.
|