Geochemical response of acid groundwater to neutralization by alkaline recharge

Donovan, Joseph J.; Frysinger, Kevin W.; Maher, Thomas P.

doi:10.1007/bf01160044

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many authors have identified the importance of aluminum sulfate minerals in acidic waters (Nordstrom and Ball, 1986;Nordstrom, 1982;Bigham and Nordstrom, 2000;Plumlee, 1999;Alpers et al, 1992Alpers et al, , 1994Donovan et al, 1996;Hamlin and Alpers, 1996;Kimball et al, 1994;Lee et al, 1992;Zhu and Burden, 2001), noting that they may control aluminum and sulfate concentrations and buffer the system acidity.…”

Section: Aluminum Sulfate Phasesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Response to Comment on Nicholson et al. 2003. Elements Influencing Cost Allocation in the Pinal Creek Aquifer, Arizona, USA. Part II: Geochemical Controls on Groundwater Quality Recovery.Environ. Forensics4(4):271–286

Nicholson¹,

Davis²,

Helgen³

2004

Environmental Forensics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mr. Logsdon raised several concerns about our recent article on metals geochemistry in the Pinal Creek aquifer. While he questions some details of our analysis, it is possible that he overlooked a large body of data related to in situ mineralogic buffering of acidic ground waters.The major issues presented by Mr. Logsdon include:1. concern about the applicability of aluminum-bearing mineralogic phases used in our analysis; 2. confusion about the mechanisms and kinetics of buffering reactions; 3. disagreement of the applicability of saturation indices (SI) in data interpretation; and 4. possible misunderstanding about the use of iron sulfate phases in our analysis.Our responses to these items are as follows:1. The role of these phases is well supported by the data. 2. The data clearly show that kinetic limitations are insignificant. 3. Saturation indices are important in data interpretation, in light of the large universe of data. 4. We have extensively described the role of iron-sulfate phases in the system.Mr. Logsdon is apparently skeptical that anthropogenic aluminum and iron sulfate minerals in the Pinal Creek aquifer will depress the groundwater pH for long periods of time during remediation. Our analysis of chemical buffering demonstrates that historical precipitated metal and acid releases are still affecting the system, and that these releases drive the remedial duration for groundwater neutralization.In addition, Mr. Logsdon mistakenly states "Quantitative importance of pH buffering by AlOHSO 4 is intrinsic to using total mass metal loading as the basis for cost-allocation as proposed by Dr. Davis and his coworkers." While our analysis of remedial timeframes of the Pinal Creek aquifer elucidates the nature of the technical issues that provide a basis for cost allocation, the loading calculations and fingerprinting work presented in Parts I and III of our analysis Moomaw et al., 2003) stand alone as valid methods of identifying sources and determining mass loading from facilities in the Pinal Creek drainage. Specifically, our work shows that remediation will take a long time, with our estimates ranging from 22 years to over 140 years in the acidic core of the plume. It also demonstrates that acid and metal releases over the entire timeframe of industrial discharges contribute to the formation of acid-and metal-storing minerals that impede remedial progress.Overall, our conclusions regarding the buffering of pH at acidic levels by aluminum and iron hydroxysulfate minerals are well founded in the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, supported by field and laboratory data, and are consistent with our modeling results. In fact, many other researchers have discussed the specific relevant aluminum and iron hydroxysulfate phases, and have reached the consensus that they not control sulfate, aluminum, and iron solubility at low pH but also play an important role in controlling the chemistry of acidic systems.

show abstract

Section: Aluminum Sulfate Phasesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Response to Comment on Nicholson et al. 2003. Elements Influencing Cost Allocation in the Pinal Creek Aquifer, Arizona, USA. Part II: Geochemical Controls on Groundwater Quality Recovery.Environ. Forensics4(4):271–286

Nicholson¹,

Davis²,

Helgen³

2004

Environmental Forensics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The geochemistry and hydrology of coal waste rock dumps: A systematic global review

Welch

Barbour

Hendry

2021

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction of Aluminum, Uranium, and Co-Contaminants Precipitation and Adsorption during Titration of Acidic Sediments

Tang

Luo

Watson

et al. 2013

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Batch and column recirculation titration tests were performed with contaminated acidic sediments. A generic geochemical model was developed combining precipitation, cation exchange, and surface complexation reactions to describe the observed pH and metal ion concentrations in experiments with or without the presence of CO2. Experimental results showed a slow pH increase due to strong buffering by Al hydrolysis and precipitation and CO2 uptake. The cation concentrations generally decreased at higher pH than those observed in previous tests without CO2. Using amorphous Al(OH)3 and basaluminite precipitation reactions and a cation exchange selectivity coefficient K(Na\Al) of 0.3, the model approximately described the observed (1) pH titration curve, (2) Ca, Mg, and Mn concentration by cation exchange, and (3) U concentrations by surface complexation with Fe hydroxides at pH < 5 and with liebigite (Ca2UO2(CO3)3·10H2O) precipitation at pH > 5. The model indicated that the formation of aqueous carbonate complexes and competition with carbonate for surface sites could inhibit U and Ni adsorption and precipitation. Our results suggested that the uncertainty in basaluminite solubility is an important source of prediction uncertainty and ignoring labile solid phase Al underestimates the base requirement in titration of acidic sediments.

show abstract

Geochemical response of acid groundwater to neutralization by alkaline recharge

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Response to Comment on Nicholson et al. 2003. Elements Influencing Cost Allocation in the Pinal Creek Aquifer, Arizona, USA. Part II: Geochemical Controls on Groundwater Quality Recovery.Environ. Forensics4(4):271–286

Response to Comment on Nicholson et al. 2003. Elements Influencing Cost Allocation in the Pinal Creek Aquifer, Arizona, USA. Part II: Geochemical Controls on Groundwater Quality Recovery.Environ. Forensics4(4):271–286

The geochemistry and hydrology of coal waste rock dumps: A systematic global review

Prediction of Aluminum, Uranium, and Co-Contaminants Precipitation and Adsorption during Titration of Acidic Sediments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About