|
|
Boonstra, J., van Lier, R., Janssen, G., Dijkman, H., & Buisman, C. J. N. (1999). Biological treatment of acid mine drainage. In R. Amils, & A. Ballester (Eds.), Process Metallurgy, vol.9, Part B (pp. 559–567). Biohydrometallurgy and the environment toward the mining of the 21st century; proceedings of the International biohydrometallurgy symposium IBS'99, Part B, Molecular biology, biosorption, bioremediation.
|
|
|
|
Brown, M. M., Atkinson, K., & Wilkins, C. (1994). Acid mine drainage amelioration by wetlands; study of a natural ecosystem. In Special Publication – United States. Bureau of Mines, Report: BUMINES-SP-06B-94 (406). Proceedings of the International land reclamation and mine drainage conference and Third international conference on The abatement of acidic drainage; Volume 2 of 4; Mine drainage.
|
|
|
|
Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2005). Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 338(1-2), 3–14.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) causes environmental pollution that affects many countries having historic or current mining industries. Preventing the formation or the migration of AMD from its source is generally considered to be the preferable option, although this is not feasible in many locations, and in such cases, it is necessary to collect, treat, and discharge mine water. There are various options available for remediating AMD, which may be divided into those that use either chemical or biological mechanisms to neutralise AMD and remove metals from solution. Both abiotic and biological systems include those that are classed as “active” (i.e., require continuous inputs of resources to sustain the process) or “passive” (i.e., require relatively little resource input once in operation). This review describes the current abiotic and bioremediative strategies that are currently used to mitigate AMD and compares the strengths and weaknesses of each. New and emerging technologies are also described. In addition, the factors that currently influence the selection of a remediation system, and how these criteria may change in the future, are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Younger, P. L., & Cornford, C. (2002). Mine water pollution from Kernow to Kwazulu-Natal; geochemical remedial options and their selection in practice.
Abstract: Pollution by mine drainage is a major problem in many parts of the world. The most frequent contaminants are Fe, Mn, Al and SO (sub 4) with locally important contributions by other metals/metalloids including (in order of decreasing frequency) Zn, Cu, As, Ni, Cd and Pb. Remedial options for such polluted drainage include monitored natural attenuation, physical intervention to minimise pollutant release, and active and passive water treatment technologies. Based on the assessment of the key hydrological and geochemical attributes of mine water discharges, a rational decision-making framework has now been developed for deciding which (or which combinations) of these options to implement in a specific case. Five case studies illustrate the application of this decision-making process in practice: Wheal Jane and South Crofty (Cornwall), Quaking Houses (Co Durham), Hlobane Colliery (South Africa) and Milluni Tin Mine (Bolivia). In many cases, particularly where the socio-environmental stakes are particularly high, the economic, political and ecological issues will prove even more challenging than the technical difficulties involved in implementing remedial interventions which will be robust in the long term. Hence truly “holistic” mine water remediation is a multi-dimensional business, involving teamwork by a range of geoscientific, hydroecological and socio-economic specialists.
|
|
|
|
Younger, P. L., Neal, C., House, W. A., Leeks, G. J. L., & Marker, A. H. (1997). The longevity of minewater pollution; a basis for decision-making U.K. fluxes to the North Sea; Land Ocean Interaction Study (LOIS); river basins research, the first two years. The Science of the Total Environment, 194-195, 457–466.
|
|
