|
Bagdy, I., & Kaocsány, L. (1982). Treatment of mine water for the protection of pumps. Proceedings, 1st International Mine Water Congress, Budapest, Hungary, ABCD Supplementary volume, 201–214.
|
Ball, B. R. (1996). Advanced oxidation treatment of mine drainage. Second International Symposium on Extraction and Processing for the Treatment and Minimization of Wastes – 1996, , 363–376.
Abstract: An investigation of the effects of ozone and ozone-induced hydroxyl radical on reducing whole affluent toxicity is described and discussed relative to the application of ozone for industrial water treatment. Results from operation of an ozone system treating industrial affluent from a lead and zinc mine in Colorado are presented. The mine discharges 1,000 gpm of wastewater into a tributary of the Arkansas River and has historically exceeded Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) limits and on occasion has exceeded numeric limits for copper, ammonia, and cyanide. Based on results of a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) conducted on the effluent and individual process waste streams, the source of effluent toxicity is believed to be primarily associated with organic reagents used in the milling process.
|
Bamforth, S. M. (2006). Manganese removal from mine waters – investigating the occurrence and importance of manganese carbonates. Appl. Geochem., 21(8), 1274–1287.
Abstract: Manganese is a common contaminant of mine water and other waste waters. Due to its high solubility over a wide pH range, it is notoriously difficult to remove from contaminated waters. Previous systems that effectively remove Mn from mine waters have involved oxidising the soluble Mn(II) species at an elevated pH using substrates such as limestone and dolomites. However it is currently unclear what effect the substrate type has upon abiotic Mn removal compared to biotic removal by in situ micro-organisms (biofilms). In order to investigate the relationship between substrate type, Mn precipitation and the biofilm community, net-alkaline Mn-contaminated mine water was treated in reactors containing one of the pure materials: dolomite, limestone, magnesite and quartzite. Mine water chemistry and Mn removal rates were monitored over a 3-month period in continuous-flow reactors. For all substrates except quartzite, Mn was removed from the mine water during this period, and Mn minerals precipitated in all cases. In addition, the plastic from which the reactor was made played a role in Mn removal. Manganese oxyhydroxides were formed in all the reactors; however, Mn carbonates (specifically kutnahorite) were only identified in the reactors containing quartzite and on the reactor plastic. Magnesium-rich calcites were identified in the dolomite and magnesite reactors, suggesting that the Mg from the substrate minerals may have inhibited Mn carbonate formation. Biofilm community development and composition on all the substrates was also monitored over the 3-month period using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). The DGGE profiles in all reactors showed no change with time and no difference between substrate types, suggesting that any microbiological effects are independent of mineral substrate. The identification of Mn carbonates in these systems has important implications for the design of Mn treatment systems in that the provision of a carbonate-rich substrate may not be necessary for successful Mn precipitation. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
Banks, D., Younger, P. L., Arnesen, R. - T., Iversen, E. R., & Banks, S. B. (1997). Mine-water chemistry: The good, the bad and the ugly. Environ. Geol., 32(3), 157–174.
Abstract: Contaminative mine drainage waters have become one of the major hydrogeological and geochemical problems arising from mankind's intrusion into the geosphere. Mine drainage waters in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom are of three main types: (1) saline formation waters; (2) acidic, heavy-metal-containing, sulphate waters derived from pyrite oxidation, and (3) alkaline, hydrogen-sulphide-containing, heavy-metal-poor waters resulting from buffering reactions and/or sulphate reduction. Mine waters are not merely to be perceived as problems, they can be regarded as industrial or drinking water sources and have been used for sewage treatment, tanning and industrial metals extraction. Mine-water problems may be addressed by isolating the contaminant source, by suppressing the reactions releasing contaminants, or by active or passive water treatment. Innovative treatment techniques such as galvanic suppression, application of bactericides, neutralising or reducing agents (pulverised fly ash-based grouts, cattle manure, whey, brewers' yeast) require further research.
|
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.
|
