Dynamics of Mn removal in an acid mine drainage treatment system over 13 years after installation
- 28 Downloads
Acid mine drainage (AMD) from abandoned and active mines continues to pose a serious threat to the environment. Metal-rich fluids may emerge from abandoned mine works for hundreds of years, so the long-term performance of treatment systems must be evaluated to minimize the environmental impacts of AMD. A two-step process consisting of an aerobic wetland and a limestone bed is being used to treat coal mine-derived AMD in the Huff Run watershed of eastern Ohio, USA, and has been in operation for over 13 years. In 2002, the water was acidic (3.66 pH). From 2004 to 2014, water entering the treatment system had a pH of ~ 5.7 that increased to 7.25 by the time it exited the limestone bed. Since 2004, the effluent Al, Mn, and Fe concentrations have been between 0.05 and 0.12 mg/L, 0.04 and 0.25 mg/L, and 0.05 and 0.34 mg/L, respectively, with the majority of Fe and Al removal occurring in the wetland along with partial Mn removal. Subsequently, further Mn removal occurs as AMD flows through a limestone bed that was inoculated with a consortium of Mn(II)-oxidizing bacteria at the time of construction. An evaluation of historical system performance and current conditions indicate that effective metal removal has been sustained for over 13 years. While Mn(II)-oxidizing bacteria were most abundant in the limestone bed, they were detected throughout the system, indicating that indigenous Mn(II)-oxidizing microorganisms may be contributing to Mn removal well after the inoculation of the system.
KeywordsPassive remediation Coal mine water Mn-oxidizing bacteria Wetland Limestone Drain
This research was funded by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ID 1000002426). The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Maps were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. http://www.esri.com.
- Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B 26:211–252Google Scholar
- Duarte RA, Ladeira AC (2011) Study of manganese removal from mining effluent. In: IMWA Conference, Aachen Germany, pp 297–300Google Scholar
- HRWRP (2014) NPS Report—Huff Run Watershed Report. http://www.watersheddata.com/userview_file.aspx?UserFileLo=1&UserFileID=177. Accessed Nov 2017
- HRWRP (2015) Surface water database. http://www.watersheddata.com/map/map.aspx?WaterShed=HR1. Accessed Nov 2017
- HRWRP, Huff Run Watershed-Linden Bioremediation Project (2003) Non-point source monitoring system. http://watersheddata.com/userview_file.aspx?UserFileLo=2&UserFileID=377. Accessed Nov 2017
- ODNR (Ohio Department Natural Resources (2008) High calcium limestones in Ohio. GeoFacts 25. http://www.OhioGeology.com. Accessed Nov 2017
- Skousen JG, Sexstone A, Ziemkiewica PF (2000) Acid mine drainage control and treatment: reclamation of drastically disturbed lands, American Society of Agronomy and American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Agronomy No. 41Google Scholar
- Socotch C, Gue J, Seger NA, Uranowski L (2003) Development of the Linden AMD bioremediation system: Huff Run watershed, Tuscarawas and Carroll County, Ohio. http://www.huffrun.org. Accessed Nov 2017
- USGS (US Geological Survey) (2018) Geologic units in Tuscarawas county, Ohio. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f39157. Accessed Nov 2017
- Vail WJ, Riley RK (1995) Process for removing manganese from solutions including aqueous industrial waste. United States Patent Number 5,441,641Google Scholar
- Wise M (2010) Huff Run watershed plan. http://www.water.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/downloads/wap/HuffRun.pdf. Accessed Nov 2017