Assessment of ultrabasic rock and volcanic tuff for the treatment of acid mine drainage
Metal-rich acid mine drainages (AMD) need to be treated appropriately prior to final discharge into the surrounding environment. In this study, the feasibility of using ultra basic rock (UBR) and volcanic tuff (VT) as treatment materials to remove heavy metals from AMD was investigated. Initially...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.ums.edu.my/id/eprint/12810/1/Assessment%20of%20ultrabasic%20rock.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Metal-rich acid mine drainages (AMD) need to be treated appropriately prior to final
discharge into the surrounding environment. In this study, the feasibility of using
ultra basic rock (UBR) and volcanic tuff (VT) as treatment materials to remove
heavy metals from AMD was investigated. Initially, the efficacy of the materials
were tested using acidic aqueous metal solutions (pH=2.5; metal concentration; 10
mg/L) at different contact time, particle size and solid-solution ratio. Subsequently
the materials were tested using AMD samples collected from Mamut Copper Mine
pit. The initial and final metal concentrations (Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn) and final pH were
the main parameters analysed. The results shows that the metal removal from
aqueous solutions by both materials s dependant on contact time, particle size and
solid solution ratio. The highest efficiency was achieved at 12 hours and 16 hours
contact time (for UBR and VT respectively), particle size <0.5 mm and solid solution
ratio 0.06 g/MI. Under this condition, the removal of Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn by
UBR is 100, 100, 71 and 96%, respectively, while by VT is less efficient at 74, 91,
36 and 52%, respectively. The efficiency of UBR is closely associated with the
ability of the material to increase the pH of solution (and the final pH attained) and
subsequent precipitation of the metals. By contract, metal removal by VT is more
likely associate with adsorption. When tested on AMD samples (at optimum
condition), UBR resulted In 100, 100, 67 and 99% removal of Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn,
respectively from mine pit sample and 90, 97,6 and 69%, respectively, from
Nasapang drain sample. Comparatively, VT resulted in 96, 100, 67 and 92%
respectively; from mine pit sample and 60, 98, 12 and 11%, respectively, from
Nasapang drain sample. While the efficiency of either material is dependent on the
AMD sample, the efficiency of VT is lower than UBR and has relatively greater
potential compared to VT as treatment material for removal of heavy metals from
AMD. |
|---|