|
|
Tabak, H. H., & Govind, R. (2004). Advances in biotreatment of acid mine drainage and biorecovery of metals 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water; abstracts. In Soil & Sediment Contamination (pp. 171–172). 13.
|
|
|
|
Godard, R. R. (1970). Mine Water Treatment – Frick-district. Min. Congr. J., 56(3), 36–&.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous. (1998). Remediation of historical mine sites; technical summaries and bibliography. Littleton: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
