From tailings to soil: long-term effects of amendments on progress and trajectory of soil formation and in situ remediation in bauxite residue

Soils, Sec 3 • Remediation and Management of Contaminated or Degraded Lands • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Bauxite residue is an alkaline, saline-sodic byproduct of the Bayer process for alumina production. In situ remediation of bauxite residue is a cost-effective management strategy that transforms the residue into a soil-like medium; however, the effects of applied amendments on trajectories and progress of soil formation over the medium-long term are unclear. Here, we investigated how in situ remediation amendments guided the progress and trajectories of soil formation in bauxite residue over 20 years.

Materials and methods

Chemical and mineralogical properties of samples from a field site in Corpus Christi, Texas, were analyzed to compare the effects of three different amendments (sewage sludge, yard waste, and topsoil) on progress and trajectories of soil formation in bauxite residue. Bauxite residue was deposited ca. 40 years prior to sampling; amendments were applied at varying frequencies for 20 years prior to sampling.

Results and discussion

Sewage sludge was the most effective amendment for decreasing pH, EC, and total alkalinity of bauxite residue and increasing plant nutrients and exchangeable cations. Overall soil development is in an early stage; however, incipient soil horizons were identified from differences in chemical and mineralogical properties with depth. Although amendment type influenced the progress of soil formation, it did not appear to influence the overall trajectory of soil formation processes. Soil derived from the bauxite residue parent material is likely to progress from a spolic Technosol to a technic Cambisol and finally either a Ferralsol or Luvisol depending on organic matter dynamics.

Conclusions

Long-term impacts of amendments were consistent with those observed in previous short-term studies, with some outcomes improving further over the long term (e.g., Na+ leaching) and were realized to a depth enabling maintenance of a vegetation cover. These outcomes provide strong support for the use of in situ remediation as an alternative to soil capping that enables transformation of bauxite residue to a soil capable of supporting a self-sustaining ecosystem.

Keywords

Bauxite residue Soil formation Tailings remediation Technosol 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Alcoa Corpus Christi field team led by Steve Zielonka and Keith Schmidt for assistance with field work and Stephen Leavy of Alcoa of Australia Limited (Kwinana) for arranging sample transport and access to analytical equipment. Part of this research was undertaken on the powder diffraction beamline (10BM1) at the Australian Synchrotron, Victoria, Australia, and the authors thank Justin Kimpton and Qinfen Gu for the assistance with XRD analyses on this beamline. The authors also thank Ian Madsen (CSIRO Process Science and Engineering) for coding the TOPAS macro used for XRD sample geometry corrections and for the advice regarding Rietveld refinement. This research was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award, a UWA Geoffrey Kennedy Postgraduate Research Travel Award, and funding from the Minerals and Energy Research Institute of Western Australia, Alcoa of Australia Limited, and BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd.

Supplementary material

11368_2017_1867_MOESM1_ESM.doc (652 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 652 kb)

References

  1. Alcoa (2002) Affected property assessment report facility 200 and bed 22 landfill. Reynolds Metal Company, Corpus ChristiGoogle Scholar
  2. Amlinger F, Götz B, Dreher P, Geszti J, Weissteiner C (2003) Nitrogen in biowaste and yard waste compost: dynamics of mobilization and availability—a review. Eur J Soil Biol 39:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke IT, Mayes WM, Peacock CL, Brown AP, Jarvis AP, Bruiz K (2012) Speciation of arsenic, chromium, and vanadium in red mud samples from the Ajka spill site, Hungary. Environ Sci Technol 46:3085–3092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen CR, Phillips IR, Wei LL, Xu ZH (2010) Behaviour and dynamics of di-ammonium phosphate in bauxite processing residue sand in Western Australia—I. NH3 volatilisation and residual nitrogen availability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 17:1098–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen AF, He H, Dyck MF, Turner EL, Chanasyk DS, Naeth MA, Nichol C (2013) In situ measurement of snowmelt infiltration under various topsoil cap thicknesses on a reclaimed site. Can J Soil Sci 93:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho A (2007) TOPAS-Academic v 4.1. Coelho Software, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  7. Courtney RG, Timpson JP, Grennan E (2003) Growth of Trifolium pratense in red mud amended with process sand, gypsum and thermally dried sewage sludge. Int J Surf Mining Reclam Environ 17(4):227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Courtney RG, Timpson JP (2004) Nutrient status of vegetation grown in alkaline bauxite processing residue amended with gypsum and thermally dried sewage sludge—a two year field study. Plant Soil 266:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtney RG, Timpson JP (2005) Reclamation of fine fraction bauxite processing residue (red mud) amended with coarse fraction residue and gypsum. Water Air Soil Poll 164:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney R, Harrington T (2010) Growth and nutrition of Holcus lanatus in bauxite residue amended with combinations of spent mushroom compost and gypsum. Land Degrad Dev 23:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Industry, Tourism, and Resources (DITR) (2007) Leading practice sustainable development program for the mining industry—tailings management. Australian Government, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobrowolski MP, Fey MV, Santini TC (2011) Rapid determination of residual alkalinity in bauxite residue. In: Travaux Volume 36, 2011—Proceedings of the ICSOBA Seminar on Bauxite Residue (Red Mud), Mineral Information and Development Centre, NagpurGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastham J, Morald T, Aylmore P (2006) Effective nutrient sources for plant growth on bauxite residue. I. Comparing organic and inorganic fertilizers. Water Air Soil Pollut 176(1–4):5–19Google Scholar
  14. Faiers GE, Keim BD, Muller RA (1997) Rainfall frequency/magnitude atlas for the South-Central United States. Southern Regional Climate Center Technical Report 97-1. Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller RD, Nelson EDP, Richardson CJ (1982) Reclamation of red mud (bauxite residues) using alkaline-tolerant grasses with organic amendments. J Environ Qual 11:533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelencsér A, Kováts N, Turóczi B, Rostási Á, Hoffer A, Imre K, Nyiró-Kósa I, Csákberenyi-Malasics D, Tóth A, Czitrovsky A, Nagy A, Nagy S, Ács A, Kovács A, Ferincz Á, Hartyáni Z, Pósfai M (2011) The red mud accident in Ajka (Hungary): characterization and potential health effects of fugitive dust. Environ Sci Technol 45:1608–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gherardi MJ, Rengel Z (2001) Bauxite residue sand has the capacity to rapidly decrease availability of added manganese. Plant Soil 234:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gräfe M, Klauber C (2011) Bauxite residue issues: IV. Old obstacles and new pathways for in situ residue bioremediation. Hydrometallurgy 108:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gräfe M, Power G, Klauber C (2011) Bauxite residue issues: III. Alkalinity and associated chemistry. Hydrometallurgy 108:60–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gräfe M, Landers M, Tappero R, Austin P, Gan B, Grabsch A, Klauber C (2010) Combined application of QEM-SEM and hard X-ray microscopy to determine mineralogical associations and chemical speciation of trace metals. J Environ Qual 40:767–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes SM, Root RA, Perdrial N, Maier RM, Chorover J (2014) Surficial weathering of iron sulfide mine tailings under semi-arid climate. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 141:240–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hazelton P, Murphy B (2007) Interpreting soil test results: what do all the numbers mean? CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  23. Huot H, Simonnot MO, Marion P, Yvon J, De Donato D, Morel JL (2013) Characteristics and potential pedogenetic processes of a Technosol developing on iron industry deposits. J Soils Sediments 13:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huot H, Simonnot MO, Watteau F, Marion P, Yvon J, DeDonato P, Morel JL (2014) Early transformation and transfer processes in a Technosol developing on iron industry deposits. Eur J Soil Sci 65:470–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huot H, Simonnot MO, Morel JL (2015) Pedogenetic trends in soils formed in technogenic parent materials. Soil Sci 180:182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ippolito JA, Redente EF, Barbarick KA (2005) Amendment effects on pH and salt content of bauxite residue. Soil Sci 170:832–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IUSS Working Group WRB (2014) World Reference base for Soil Resources 2014. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones BEH, Haynes RJ (2011) Bauxite processing residue: a critical review of its formation, properties, storage, and revegetation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Tech 41:271–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kong X, Li M, Xue S, Hartley W, Chen C, Wu C, Li X, Li Y (2017a) Acid transformation of bauxite residue: conversion of its alkaline characteristics. J Hazard Mater 324:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kong X, Guo Y, Xue S, Hartley W, Wu C, Ye Y, Cheng Q (2017b) Natural evolution of alkaline characteristics in bauxite residue. J Clean Prod 143:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khaitan S, Dzombak DA, Lowry GV (2009) Chemistry of the acid neutralization capacity of bauxite residue. Environ Eng Sci 26:873–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khaitan S, Dzombak DA, Swallow P, Schmidt K, Fu J, Lowry GV (2010) Field evaluation of bauxite residue neutralization by carbon dioxide, vegetation, and organic amendments. J Environ Eng 136:1045–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lacy H (2005) Closure and rehabilitation of tailings storage facilities. In: Adams MD (ed) Developments in mineral processing, vol 15. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 233–250Google Scholar
  34. Leguédois S, Séré G, Auclerc A, Cortet J, Huot H, Ouvrard S, Watteau F, Schwartz C, Morel JL (2016) Modelling pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma 262:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lehoux AP, Lockwood CL, Mayes WM, Stewart DI, Mortimer RJG, Gruiz K, Burke IT (2013) Gypsum addition to soils contaminated by red mud: implications for aluminium, arsenic, molybdenum and vanadium solubility. Environ Geochem Health 35:643–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meecham JR, Bell LC (1977) Revegetation of alumina refinery wastes. 1. Properties and amelioration of the materials. Aust J Exp Agr 17:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mendez MO, Maier RM (2008) Phytostabilisation of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments—an emerging remediation technology. Environ Health Persp 116:278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Menzies NW, Fulton IM, Morrell WJ (2004) Seawater neutralization of alkaline bauxite residue and implications for revegetation. J Environ Qual 33:1877–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menzies NW, Fulton IM, Kopittke RA, Kopittke PM (2009) Fresh water leaching of alkaline bauxite residue after sea water neutralization. J Environ Qual 38:2050–2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohan RK, Herbich JB, Hossner LR, Williams FS (1997) Reclamation of solid waste landfills by capping with dredged material. J Hazard Mater 53:141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1982) Mean monthly, seasonal, and annual pan evaporation for the United States. NOAA Technical Report NWS 34. National Weather Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  42. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2011) NOAA online weather data—Corpus Christi Weather Forecast Office 1981–2010. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Corpus ChristiGoogle Scholar
  43. Behling P, Wheeler LLC (2005) Potentiometric map of Zone A. Pastor Behling and Wheeler LLC, Port LavacaGoogle Scholar
  44. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Phillips IR, Chen C (2010) Surface charge characteristics and sorption properties of bauxite-processing residue sand. Aust J Soil Res 48:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Power G, Gräfe M, Klauber C (2011) Bauxite residue issues: I. Current management, disposal and storage practices. Hydrometallurgy 108:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayment GE, Higginson FR (1992) Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods. Inkata Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  48. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 60. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Rossiter DG (2007) Classification of urban and industrial soils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources. J Soils Sediments 7:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Santini TC (2015) Application of the Rietveld refinement method for quantification of mineral concentrations in bauxite residues (alumina refining tailings). Int J Miner Proc 139:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santini TC, Fey MV (2013) Spontaneous vegetation encroachment upon bauxite residue (red mud) as an indicator and facilitator of in situ remediation processes. Environ Sci Technol 47:12089–12096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santini TC, Fey MV, Smirk MN (2013a) Evaluation of soil analytical methods for the characterisation of alkaline Technosols: I. Moisture content, pH, and electrical conductivity. J Soils Sediments 13:1141–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santini TC, Fey MV, Smirk MN (2013b) Evaluation of soil analytical methods for the characterisation of alkaline Technosols: II. Amorphous constituents and carbonates. J Soils Sediments 13:1351–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Santini TC, Fey MV (2015) Fly ash as a permeable cap for tailings management: pedogenesis in bauxite residue tailings. J Soils Sediments 15:552–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Santini TC, Fey MV (2016) Assessment of Technosol formation and in situ remediation in capped alkaline tailings. Catena 136:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Santini TC, Malcolm LI, Tyson GW, Warren LA (2016) pH and organic carbon dose rates control microbially-driven bioremediation efficacy in alkaline bauxite residue. Environ Sci Technol 50:11164–11173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Snars KE, Gilkes RJ (2009) Evaluation of bauxite residues (red muds) of different origins for environmental applications. Appl Clay Sci 46:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor S, Pearson N (2001) Properties of Bayer process solids from Alcoa WA refineries and their component minerals, Edition 1. Alcoa World Alumina, KwinanaGoogle Scholar
  59. Terry RE, Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1979) Carbon cycling during sewage sludge decomposition in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. VSN International (2009) Genstat Release 12.1. VSN International, HelensburghGoogle Scholar
  61. Uzarowicz L, Skiba S (2011) Technogenic soils developed on mine spoils containing iron sulphides: mineral transformations as an indicator of pedogenesis. Geoderma 163:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wehr JB, Fulton I, Menzies NW (2006) Revegetation strategies for bauxite refinery residue: a case study of Alcan Gove in Northern Territory, Australia. Environ Manag 37:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams DJ (1996) Management of solid wastes. In: Mulligan DR (ed) Environmental management in the Australian minerals and energy industries—principles and practices. UNSW Press, Sydney, pp 157–188Google Scholar
  64. Wolter GLL, Naeth MA (2014) Dry mature fine tailings as oil sands reclamation substrates for three native grasses. J Environ Qual 43:1510–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wong JWC, Ho GE (1991) Effects of gypsum and sewage sludge amendment on physical properties of fine bauxite refining residue. Soil Sci 152:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wong JWC, Ho GE (1993) Use of waste gypsum in the revegetation on red mud deposits: a greenhouse study. Waste Manage Res 11:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wong JWC, Ho GE (1994) Sewage sludge as organic ameliorant for revegetation of fine bauxite refining residue. Resour Conserv Recycl 11:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Woodard HJ, Hossner L, Bush J (2008) Ameliorating caustic properties of aluminum extraction residue to establish a vegetative cover. J Environ Sci Health A 43:1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xenidis A, Harokopou AD, Mylona E, Brofas G (2005) Modifying alumina red mud to support a revegetation cover. J Miner Met Mater Soc 57:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xue S, Zhu F, Kong X, Wu C, Huang L, Huang N, Hartley W (2016a) A review of the characterization and revegetation of bauxite residues (red mud). Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1120–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Xue S, Kong X, Zhu F, Hartley W, Li X, Li Y (2016b) Proposal for management and alkalinity transformation of bauxite residue in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:12822–12834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhu F, Liao J, Xue S, Hartley W, Zou Q, Wu H (2016) Evaluation of aggregate microstructures following natural regeneration in bauxite residue as characterized by synchrotron-based X-ray micro-computed tomography. Sci Total Environ 573:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhu F, Jingtao H, Xue S, Chuan W, Qiongli W, Hartley W (2017) Vermicompost and gypsum amendments improve aggregate formation in bauxite residue. Land Degrad Dev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2737

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Agriculture and EnvironmentUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Plant Production and Soil ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations