|
Wisotzky, F. (2003). Saure Bergbauwässer (Acid Mine Drainage) und deren Qualitätsverbesserung durch Zugabe von alkalisch wirkenden Zuschlagstoffen zum Abraum : Untersuchungen im Rheinischen Braunkohlenrevier. Deutsches gewässerkundliches Jahrbuch, , 167.
|
|
|
Bilek, F., Werner, F., & Schöpke, R. (2003). Experimentelle und modellgestützte Entwicklung von Verfahren zur geochemischen Grundwasser- und Untergrundbehandlung zur Gefahrenabwehr im Nordraum des Senftenberger Sees.544.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Banks, S. B. (2003). The Coal Authority Minewater Treatment Programme: An update on the performance of operational schemes. Land Contam. Reclam., 11(2), 161–164.
Abstract: The performance of mine water treatment schemes, operated under the Coal Authority's national Minewater Treatment Programme, is summarised. Most schemes for which data are available perform successfully and remove over 90% iron. Mean area-adjusted iron removal rates for reedbed components of treatment schemes, range from 1.5 to 5.5 g Fe/m2, with percentage iron removal rates ranging from 68% to 99%. In the majority of cases, calculated area-adjusted removal rates are limited by influent iron loadings, and the empirical sizing criterion for aerobic wetlands, based on American removal rates of 10 g Fe/m2day, remains a valuable tool in the initial stages of treatment system design and estimation of land area requirements. Where a number of schemes have required modification after becoming operational, due consideration must always be given to the potential for dramatic increases in influent iron loadings, and to how the balance between performance efficiency and aesthetic appearance can best be achieved. Continual review and feedback on the performance of treatment systems, and the problems encountered during design implementation, will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Minewater Treatment Programme within the UK.
|
|