Selection of active and passive treatment systems for AMD—flow charts for New Zealand conditions

Trumm, D.

doi:10.1080/00288306.2010.500715

Cited by 60 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A variety of passive treatment technologies have been developed over the last three decades, including aerobic and anaerobic wetlands, settling ponds, anoxic limestone drains, successive alkalinity producing systems, diversion wells, bioreactors, and limestone or slag leaching beds (Skousen et al 2000;Wieder and Lang 1982). The choice of an appropriate passive treatment system is site specific and primarily depends on the MW chemistry (dissolved oxygen content, Fe 2+ /Fe 3+ ratio, Al concentration, pH) and flow rate, though other characteristics, such as topography and available land area, may also be limiting in certain areas (Trumm 2010). Process selection is often made with reference to flow charts that simplify the selection of passive treatment technologies Abstract Vertical flow reactors (VFRs) were tested at coal mine sites in New Zealand, South Korea, and the USA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Trials of Vertical Flow Reactors for Coal Mine Water Treatment

Blanco

Sapsford

Trumm³

et al. 2017

Mine Water Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

previous research confirmed that VFRs can be used as standalone passive treatment systems for iron removal from mine waters with a footprint less than half of the area required by a conventional aerobic wetland. A VFR can also provide useful iron pretreatment for other passive treatment systems under circumneutral conditions, but would have to be combined with alkaline generating systems to achieve full iron removal from acidic mine waters.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Trials of Vertical Flow Reactors for Coal Mine Water Treatment

Blanco

Sapsford

Trumm³

et al. 2017

Mine Water Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As part of AMD treatment, acidity neutralisation to pH 6-7 by alkaline reagent decreases the solubility of Fe and Al, resulting in Fe and Al hydroxide precipitation and removal by sedimentation [2,3]. However, potentially ecotoxic metals (e.g., Ni, Zn, Cu, Pb, and Cd) require a further increase in pH (to 8 or above) to precipitate as metal hydroxides [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nickel and Zinc Removal from Acid Mine Drainage: Roles of Sludge Surface Area and Neutralising Agents

Olds

Tsang

Weber³

et al. 2013

Journal of Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During acid mine drainage (AMD) treatment by alkaline reagent neutralisation, Ni and Zn are partially removed via sorption to Fe and Al hydroxide precipitates. This research evaluated the effect of surface area of precipitates, formed by neutralisation of AMD using three alkalinity reagents (NaOH, Ca(OH) 2 , and CaCO 3 ), on the sorption of Ni and Zn. The BET surface area of the precipitates formed by neutralisation of AMD with NaOH (173.7 m 2 g −1 ) and Ca(OH) 2 (168.2 m 2 g −1 ) was an order of magnitude greater than that produced by CaCO 3 neutralisation (16.7 m 2 g −1 ). At pH 6.5, the residual Ni concentration was 0.32 and 0.41 mg L −1 for NaOH and Ca(OH) 2 neutralised AMD, respectively, resulting in up to 60% lower Ni concentrations than achieved by CaCO 3 neutralisation which had no effect on Ni removal. The residual Zn concentration was even more dependent on precipitate surface area for NaOH and Ca(OH) 2 neutralised AMD (0.33 and 1.02 mg L −1 ), which was up to 85% lower than the CaCO 3 neutralised AMD (2.20 mg L −1 ). These results suggest that the surface area of precipitated flocs and the selection of neutralising reagent critically affect the sorption of Ni and Zn during AMD neutralisation.

show abstract

“…The AMD chemistry suggests that an oxidising strategy is appropriate (low Fe 2 ' /Fe 3 ' ratios and high DO concentrations), however, given the land area available, and the relatively consistent flow rate, a reducing system may be more appropriate. The flow chart in Trumm (2010) suggests three potential systems for a site such as the Sullivan Mine AMD: a RAPS, an anaerobic wetland, or an SLB. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of a RAPS in treating the Sullivan Mine AMD.…”

Section: Remediation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comprehensive review of treatment system selection is provided by Trumm (2010). The choice between the two strategies is often based on the water chemistry (largely DO content and Fe 2 ' /Fe 3 ' ratio).…”

Section: Remediation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Potential problems with passive systems include underdesign for flow and/or acidity, short circuiting of flow, armouring of limestone and plugging with precipitates. Flow charts can be used to identify potential solutions based on water chemistry and available land area and small-scale trials can be constructed on site to test potential systems before full-scale construction (Trumm 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results of small-scale passive system trials to treat acid mine drainage, West Coast Region, South Island, New Zealand

Trumm¹,

Watts²

2010

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful passive treatment of acid mine drainage can be improved through the use of small-scale pilot treatment systems to confirm appropriate system selection. Small-scale reducing and alkalinity producing systems were tested at two acid mine drainage sites in the West Coast Region, South Island, New Zealand: the Sullivan Mine and the Pike River Adit. A laboratory trial consisting of a limestone leaching column was conducted on the Blackball Mine acid mine drainage, West Coast Region. All three sites contain low pH (Sullivan Mine, 2.9; Pike River Adit, 3.2; Blackball Mine, 3.1), elevated Fe (Sullivan Mine, 47 mg/ L; Pike River Adit, 34 mg/L; Blackball Mine, 10.6 mg/L), elevated Al (Sullivan Mine, 14 mg/L; Pike River Adit, 1.6 mg/L; Blackball Mine, 14.1 mg/L) and minor concentrations of Mn (0.35Á0.51 mg/L), Ni (0.005Á0.13 mg/L) and Zn (0.14Á1.1 mg/L). The percentages of metals removed by the Sullivan Mine reducing and alkalinity producing system were: Fe (97%), Al (100%) and Ni (66%). The percentage metal removals at the Pike River Adit reducing and alkalinity producing system were: Fe (99%), Al (96%), Ni (95%) and Zn (99%). Percent metal removals for the Blackball Mine acid mine drainage were: Fe (87%), Al (91%), Mn (21%) and Zn (68%). Interpretation of data from these small-scale systems suggests that a reducing strategy may be successful at the Sullivan Mine and Pike River Adit and that an oxidising strategy may be appropriate for the Blackball Mine.

show abstract

Selection of active and passive treatment systems for AMD—flow charts for New Zealand conditions

Cited by 60 publications

References 23 publications

International Trials of Vertical Flow Reactors for Coal Mine Water Treatment

International Trials of Vertical Flow Reactors for Coal Mine Water Treatment

Nickel and Zinc Removal from Acid Mine Drainage: Roles of Sludge Surface Area and Neutralising Agents

Results of small-scale passive system trials to treat acid mine drainage, West Coast Region, South Island, New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About