| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–30] |
|
Bertrand, S. (1997). Performance of a nanofiltration plant on hard and highly sulphated water during two years of operation. Desalination, 113(2-3), 277–281.
Abstract: A highly sulphated, hard water from a flooded iron mine was treated by nanofiltration for the production of drinking water (125 m(3)/h). This paper introduces the context and summarizes the configuration and operating conditions of the plant. The process performance in terms of product water quality and permeability during the first 2 years is presented and discussed.
Keywords: mine water treatment
|
|
(1995). Selecting Mine Drainage Treatment Systems. E&Mj-Engineering and Mining Journal, 196(10), Rr24–&.
|
|
Baker, K. A., Fennessy, M. S., & Mitsch, W. J. (1991). Designing wetlands for controlling coal mine drainage: an ecologic- economic modelling approach. Ecological Economics, 3(1), 1–24.
Abstract: A simulation model is developed of the efficiency and economics of an application of ecotechnology – using a created wetland to receive and treat coal mine drainage. The model examines the role of loading rates of iron on treatment efficiencies and the economic costs of wetland versus conventional treatment of mine drainage. It is calibrated with data from an Ohio wetland site and verified from multi-site data from Tennessee and Alabama. The model predicts that iron removal is closely tied to loading rates and that the cost of wetland treatment is less than that of conventional for iron loading rates of approximately 20-25 g Fe m “SUP -2” day “SUP -1” and removal efficiencies less than 85%. A wetland to achieve these conditions would cost approximately US$50 000 per year according to the model. When higher loading rates exist and higher efficiencies are needed, wetland systems are more costly than conventional treatment. -Authors
|
|
Tarutis Jr, W. J., Stark, L. R., & Williams, F. M. (1999). Sizing and performance estimation of coal mine drainage wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 12(3-4), 353–372.
Abstract: The effectiveness of wetland treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD) was assessed using three measures of performance: treatment efficiency, area-adjusted removal, and first-order removal. Mathematical relationships between these measures were derived from simple kinetic equations. Area-adjusted removal is independent of pollutant concentration (zero-order reaction kinetics), while first-order removal is dependent on concentration. Treatment efficiency is linearly related to area-adjusted removal and exponentially related to first-order removal at constant hydraulic loading rates (flow/area). Examination of previously published data from 35 natural AMD wetlands revealed that statistically significant correlations exist between several of the performance measures for both iron and manganese removal, but these correlations are potentially spurious because these measures are derived from, and are mathematical rearrangements of, the same operating data. The use of treatment efficiency as a measure of performance between wetlands is not recommended because it is a relative measure that does not account for influent concentration differences. Area-adjusted removal accounts for mass loading effects, but it fails to separate the flow and concentration components, which is necessary if removal is first-order. Available empirical evidence suggests that AMD pollutant removal is better described by first-order kinetics. If removal is first-order, the use of area-adjusted rates for determining the wetland area required for treating relatively low pollutant concentrations will result in undersized wetlands. The effects of concentration and flow rate on wetland area predictions for constant influent loading rates also depend on the kinetics of pollutant removal. If removal is zero-order, the wetland area required to treat a discharge to meet some target effluent concentration is a decreasing linear function of influent concentration (and an inverse function of flow rate). However, if removal is first-order, the required wetland area is a non-linear function of the relative influent concentration. Further research is needed for developing accurate first-order rate constants as a function of influent water chemistry and ecosystem characteristics in order to successfully apply the first-order removal model to the design of more effective AMD wetland treatment 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.
|