Bioremediation of acid-rock drainage by sulphate-reducing prokaryotes: A review

Sheoran, A. S.; Sheoran, V.; Choudhary, R. P.

doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2010.07.001

Cited by 164 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sulfate-reducing anaerobic bioreactors have been treated as 'black boxes' without a thorough understanding of the microorganisms involved in SO4 2− reduction [21]. The operation of these bioreactors is highly dependent on microbial activities and a better understanding of the role of microbial communities in these systems will assist in improving their design and performance [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of COD:SO4 2− Ratio, HRT and Linoleic Acid Concentration on Mesophilic Sulfate Reduction: Reactor Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics

Moon

Singh

Veeravalli

et al. 2015

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of COD:SO4 2− Ratio, HRT and Linoleic Acid Concentration on Mesophilic Sulfate Reduction: Reactor Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics

Moon

Singh

Veeravalli

et al. 2015

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in the case of UASB reactors, the residence time must be larger than the generation time to avoid microorganism washout (during sulfidogenesis) (Kaksonen et al, 2004). Overall, the performance of anaerobic reactors treating high sulfate loading rates (SLR) is defined by: (i) substrate type (Liamleam and Annachhatre, 2007); (ii) COD.sulfate -1 ratio (Shayegan et al, 2005;Velasco et al, 2008); (iii) inoculum source and enrichment procedure (Mohan, 2005); (iv) pH values (Cao et al, 2009); competition among different groups of microorganisms (Dar et al, 2008;Zhao et al, 2008), and reactor configuration (Sahinkaya et al, 2007;Sheoran et al, 2010). Moreover, competition between sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and methane-producing microorganisms (MPM) in anaerobic reactors is well documented (Bhattacharya et al, 1996;Harada et al, 1994;Omil et al, 1998), but the fermentative metabolism, which can also degrade low molecular weight carbon sources (Dinkel et al, 2010;Ren et al, 2007;Zhao et al, 2008), is less discussed in the context of continuous sulfate reduction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Uasb and Fluidized-Bed Reactors for Sulfate Reduction

Bertolino

Silva

Aquino

et al. 2015

Braz. J. Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Reactor hydrodynamics is important for sulfidogenesis because sulfate reduction bacteria (SRB) do not granulate easily. In this work, the sulfate reduction performance of two continuous anaerobic bioreactors was investigated: (i) an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor and (ii) a fluidized bed reactor (FBR). Organic loading, sulfate reduction, and COD removal were the main parameters monitored during lactate and glycerol degradation. The UASB reactor with biomass recirculation showed a specific sulfate reduction rate of 0.089±0.014 g.gSSV -1 .d -1 (89% reduction), whereas values twice as high were achieved in the FBR treating either lactate (0.200±0.017 g.gSSV -1 .d -1 ) or glycerol (0.178±0.010 g.gSSV -1 .d -1 ). Sulfate reduction with pure glycerol produced a smaller residual COD (1700 mg.L -1 ) than that produced with lactate (2500 mg.L -1 ) at the same COD.sulfate -1 mass ratio. It was estimated that 50% of glycerol degradation was due to sulfate reduction and 50% to fermentation, which was supported by the presence of butyrate in the FBR effluent. The UASB reactor was unable to produce effluents with sulfate concentrations below 250 mg.L -1 due to poor mixing conditions, whereas the FBR consistently ensured residual sulfate concentrations below such a value.

show abstract

“…Active treatment requires the use of alkaline materials (lime, limestone, hydrated lime, caustic soda, soda ash, etc.) or aeration to reduce acidity and precipitate metals, while passive (abiotic and biological) treatment allows chemical and biological processes to take place naturally in a controlled environment (Costello 2003;Johnson and Hallberg 2005;Sheoran and Sheoran 2006;Rios et al 2008;Sheoran et al 2010). A pilot plant et al (2010) consisting of sequential alkalinity producing (SAP) system coupled with biological processes was designed for treatment of AMD from coalmines of Meghalaya, northeast India ).…”

Section: Coal Distribution and Its Characteristics In Northeast Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Coal mining in northeast India: an overview of environmental issues and treatment approaches

Chabukdhara

Singh

2016

Int J Coal Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Northeast India has a good deposit of sub-bituminous tertiary coal. The northeast Indian coals have unusual physico-chemical characteristics such as high sulfur, volatile matter and vitrinite content, and low ash content. In addition, many environmental sensitive organic and mineral bound elements such as Fe, Mg, Bi, Al, V, Cu, Cd, Ni, Pb, and Mn etc. remain enriched in these coals. Such characteristics are associated with more severe environmental impacts due to mining and its utilization in coal based industries. Environmental challenges include large scale landscape damage, soil erosion, loss of forest ecosystem and wildlife habitat, air, water and soil pollution. Several physical and chemical methods are reported in literature for the removal of mineral matter, total sulfur and different forms of sulfur from high sulfur coal in northeast India. This paper may help different researchers and stakeholders to understand current state of research in the field. Initiatives may be taken towards sustainable use of coal resources by adopting innovative clean technologies and by implementing effective control measures and regulatory policies.

show abstract

Bioremediation of acid-rock drainage by sulphate-reducing prokaryotes: A review

Cited by 164 publications

References 149 publications

Effect of COD:SO4 2− Ratio, HRT and Linoleic Acid Concentration on Mesophilic Sulfate Reduction: Reactor Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics

Effect of COD:SO4 2− Ratio, HRT and Linoleic Acid Concentration on Mesophilic Sulfate Reduction: Reactor Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics

Comparison of Uasb and Fluidized-Bed Reactors for Sulfate Reduction

Coal mining in northeast India: an overview of environmental issues and treatment approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About