|
Emerick, J. C., Wildeman, T. R., Cohen, R. R., & Klusman, R. W. (1994). Constructed wetland treatment of acid mine discharge at Idaho Springs, Colorado Guidebook on the geology, history, and surface-water contamination and remediation in the area from Denver to Idaho Springs, Colorado (R. C. Severson, Ed.) (Vol. C 1097).
|
Ettner, D. C. (2007). (R. Cidu, & F. Frau, Eds.). Water in Mining Environments. Cagliari: Mako Edizioni.
Abstract: Previous mining history in Norway has resulted in ongoing release of acid mine drainage. Preservation of the historical sites in mining areas does not allow for remediation technologies that result in significant alteration of the historical landscape. Therefore, alternative remediation techniques such as passive mine water treatment have been tested. The climate in Norway varies from mild coastal climates to artic climates, and one of the challenges with passive treatment systems is the cold winter conditions. Anaerobic treatment systems have been built at Kongens Mine near Røros, at Folldal mines, and at Titania's tailings impoundment near Storgangen Mine. These systems utilize sulfate-reducing bacteria that result in the precipitation of metal sulfides. A full- and pilot-scale system at Kongens Mine and Folldal were built in 2006 to remove copper and zinc from typical ARD in an alpine climate. Previous testing with pilot scale systems at Kongens Mine showed that up to 85% copper and 48% zinc could be removed. At Titania A/S the anaerobic system is designed to remove nickel from neutral waters. At this system over 90% nickel is removed when water flow is regulated at a constant flow. Testing shows that the system can function in cold winter conditions, however, optimal metal removal is achieved under warmer temperatures. Temperatures changes by global climatic warming will not adversely affect these anaerobic systems. However, extreme precipitation events and the resulting rapid fluctuations of ARD runoff will provide a challenge for the effectiveness of these systems.
|
Evangelou, V. P. (2001). Pyrite microencapsulation technologies: Principles and potential field application. Ecological Engineering, 17(2-3), 165–178.
Abstract: In nature, pyrite is initially oxidized by atmospheric O2, releasing acidity and Fe2+. At pH below 3.5, Fe2+ is rapidly oxidized by T. ferrooxidans to Fe3+, which oxidizes pyrite at a much faster rate than O2. Commonly, limestone is used to prevent pyrite oxidation. This approach, however, has a short span of effectiveness because after treatment the surfaces of pyrite particles remain exposed to atmospheric O2 and oxidation continuous abiotically. Currently, a proposed mechanism for explaining non-microbial pyrite oxidation in high pH environments is the involvement of OH- in an inner-sphere electron-OH exchange between pyrite/surface-exposed disulfide and pyrite/surface-Fe(III)(OH)n3-n complex and/or formation of a weak electrostatic pyrite/surface-CO3 complex which enhances the chemical oxidation of Fe2+. The above infer that limestone application to pyritic geologic material treats only the symptoms of pyrite oxidation through acid mine drainage neutralization but accelerates non-microbial pyrite oxidation. Therefore, only a pyrite/surface coating capable of inhibiting O2 diffusion is expected to control long-term oxidation and acid drainage production. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility in controlling pyrite oxidation by creating, on pyrite surfaces, an impermeable phosphate or silica coating that would prevent either O2 or Fe3+ from further oxidizing pyrite. The mechanism underlying this coating approach involves leaching mine waste with a coating solution composed of H2O2 or hypochlorite, KH2PO4 or H4SiO4, and sodium acetate (NaAC) or limestone. During the leaching process, H2O2 or hypochlorite oxidizes pyrite and produces Fe3+ so that iron phosphate or iron silicate precipitates as a coating on pyrite surfaces. The purpose of NaAC or limestone is to eliminate the inhibitory effect of the protons (produced during pyrite oxidation) on the precipitation of iron phosphate or silicate and to generate iron-oxide pyrite coating, which is also expected to inhibit pyrite oxidation. The results showed that iron phosphate or silicate coating could be established on pyrite by leaching it with a solution composed of: (1) H2O2 0.018-0.16 M; (2) phosphate or silicate 10-3 to 10-2 M; (3) coating-solution pH [approximate]5-6; and (4) NaAC as low as 0.01 M. Leachates from column experiments also showed that silicate coatings produced the least amount of sulfate relative to the control, limestone and phosphate treatments. On the other hand, limestone maintained the leachate near neutral pH but produced more sulfate than the control.
|
|
Faulkner, B. B., Skousen, J. G., Skousen, J. G., & Ziemkiewicz, P. F. (1996). Treatment of acid mine drainage by passive treatment systems. In Acid mine drainage control and treatment. Morgantown: West Virginia University and the National Mine Land Reclamation Center.
|
|
Fernandez Rubio, R. (2001). Un recurso valioso las aguas de mina. A valuable resource, mine waters. Industria y Mineria, 345, 14–22.
|
