In order to study the feasibility and microbial mechanism of sludge barrier for acid mine drainage (AMD), the microbial functional diversity in the compacted sludge with different seepage conditions (the distilled water (DW), the pH2.1 sulfuric acid and the simulate AMD) was studied using Biolog and Most Probable Number (MPN) testing system. The results showed that the average well color development (AWCD), the Shannon index (H), the Evenness index (E), the number of positive Ecoplate wells (S), the total bacteria (TB), and the sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) quantity differed between different seepage conditions. Compared with the DW seepage condition, the acidity and AMD condition had the lower AWCD, S, H, E values which showed the latter inhibition effect be stronger. The seepage conditions changed the microbial quantity of carbon utilization and ability to utilize the single carbon source. So the property of the microbial functional diversity in the compacted sludge might indicate the microbial differences under the different seepage conditions in this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (No. 20110211110025) and the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Provincial Science & Technology Planning Project, China (No. 18JR3RA222).
MEP of China (2010) The guide to the emergency management of tailings (Trial). MEP, BeijingGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez L (2009) Heavy metal distribution and chemical speciation in tailings and soils around a Pb-Zn mine in Spain. J Environ Manag 90:1106–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blight G (2010) Geotechnical engineering for mine waste storage facilities. Tayor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neculita CM, Zagury GJ, Bussiere B (2007) Passive treatment of acid mine drainage in bioreactors using sulfate-reducing bacteria: Critical review and research needs. J Environ Qual 36:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang B, Zhang H, Fan Z et al (2010) Compacted sewage sludge as a barrier for tailing impoundment. Environ Earth Sci 61:931–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai H, Kang Y, Quan HE et al (2013) Treatment of acid mine drainage by sulfate reducing bacteria with iron in bench scale runs. Biores Tech 128:818–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang J, Li SJ, Chen TH et al (2012) Effects of heavy metals on the performance of anaerobic sulfidogenic reactor using rape straw as carbon source. Environ Earth Sci 67:2161–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou Q, Chen YZ, Yang M et al (2013) Enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal from effluent by sulfate-reducing bacteria with copper-iron bimetallic particles support. Biores Tech 136:413–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang Q, Gu F, Zhang Y et al (2018) Impact of biological clogging on the barrier performance of landfill liners. J Environ Manag 222:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang Q, Gu F, Gao YF et al (2018) Desorption characteristics of Cr(III), Mn(II) and Ni(II) in contaminated soil using citric acid and citric acid containing wastewater. Soils Found (JGS) 58(1):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brim H (2006) Deinococcus radiodurans engineered for complete toluene degradation facilitates Cr(VI) reduction. Microb, 152:2469–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller C, Van Heerden E (2006) Isolation of a soluble and membrane-associated Fe(III) reductase from the thermophile, Thermus scotoductus (SA-01). FEMS Microb Lett 265:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opperman DJ (2007) Aerobic Cr(VI) reduction by Thermus scotoductus strain SA-01. J Appl Microb 103:1907–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang H, Zhang Q, Yang B et al (2014) Compacted sewage sludge as a barrier for tailings: the heavy metal speciation and total organic carbon content in the compacted sludge specimen. PLoS ONE 9:e100932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASTM (2009) Standard methods for sulfate-reducing bacteria in water and water-formed deposits, in D4412-84, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
Moynahan OS, Zabinski CA, Gannon JE (2002) Microbial community structure and carbon-utilization diversity in a mine tailings revegetation study. Rest. Eco. 10:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar