Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 164, Issue 1–4, pp 91–102 | Cite as

Reclamation of Fine Fraction Bauxite Processing Residue (Red Mud) Amended with Coarse Fraction Residue and Gypsum

  • R. G. Courtney
  • J. P. Timpson
Article

Abstract

Establishment of vegetation on residues produced from the bauxite refining process is a beneficial part of their environmental management. Of the two fractions produced in the refining, the coarse fraction has greater efficiency in the leaching of excess salts and alkalinity. However, these same properties can result in increased loss of nutrients and low water-holding capacity. The current study investigated the use of mixing coarse fraction residue with fine fraction residue, at two different application rates (10% and 25%), with and without the use of gypsum as an ameliorant, for re-vegetation of the residue with Trifolium pratense. Optimum plant growth was observed in treatments that had also received gypsum amendment, with higher plant biomass, Mn nutrition and lower Al and Fe concentration. However, use of process sand at the higher application rate (25%) promoted lower levels of soluble Al and Fe and exchangeable Na in the substrate and, consequently, lower plant uptake of Na. Results indicate that co-disposal of the coarse fraction sand at 25% w/w with fine fraction residue can improve the substrate and, therefore, plant uptake and growth. Further monitoring is recommended to determine the effect of the absence of gypsum and other nutrient sources on plant growth.

Keywords

grass establishment rehabilitation red mud revegetation sand fraction Trifolium pratense 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, S. A.: 1984, Manganese, In Soil Nutrient Bioavailability – A Mechanistic Approach, Wiley & Sons, London.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, N. J.: 1982, ‘Possibility of using caustic residue from bauxite for improving the chemical and physical properties of sandy soils’, Aust. J. Agric. Res. 33, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, L.: 1974, ‘Crop growth and salinity’, In: Drainage for Agriculture, Van Schilfgaarde, J. (ed), Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, A. and Johnson, M.: 1990, Revegetation of metalliferous mine wastes: The range of practical techniques used in Western Europe.Google Scholar
  5. Bremner, J. M. and Mulvaney, C. S.: 1982, ‘Nitrogen – Total’, In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Page, A.L. (ed), p. 595–624, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, C. W. and Dregne, H. E.: 1955, ‘Effect of exchangeable sodium on soil properties and growth and cation content of Alfafa and Cotton’, Soil Science Society America Proceedings 19, 29–35.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, H. D.: 1966, Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils, California, USA.: University of California.Google Scholar
  8. Fuller, R., Nelson, E. and Richardson, C.: 1982, ‘Reclamation of red mud (bauxite residues) using alkaline-tolerant grasses with organic amendments’, Journal of Environmental Quality 11(3), 533–539.Google Scholar
  9. Gherardi, M. J. and Rengel, Z.: 2001, ‘Deep placement of manganese fertiliser improves sustainability of lucerne growing on bauxite residue: A glasshouse study’, Plant and Soil 257, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gherardi, M. J. and Rengel, Z.: 2003, ‘Bauxite residue sand has the capacity to rapidly decrease availability of added manganese’, Plant and Soil 234, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta, R. and Abrol, I. P.: 1990, ‘Reclamation and management of alkali soils’, Indian J. Agric. Sci. 60, 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Haby, V. A., Russelle, M. P. and Skogley, E. A.: 1990, Testing soils for potassium, calcium, and magnesium, In: Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, ed. Westerman, R.L., 3rd ed, p. 229–264, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.Google Scholar
  13. Jasper, D., Lockley, I., Ward, S. and White, A.: 2000, ‘Current approaches and future challenges for rehabilitation of bauxite residue’, In: Proceedings of Remade Lands 2000, International Conference on the Remediation and Management of Degraded Lands, Ed. Brion, A. and Bell, R.W., 30th November–2nd December, Freemantle, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Jeffrey, D. W., Maybury, M. and Levinge, D.: 1974, Ecological Approach to Mining Waste Revegetation, Minerals and the Environment, The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.Google Scholar
  15. Knudsen, D., Peterson, G. A. and Pratt, P.: 1982, Lithium, sodium and potassium, In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Page, A.L. (ed), p. 225–246, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.Google Scholar
  16. Li, L. Y.: 1998, ‘Properties of red mud tailings produced under varying process conditions’, Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(3), 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindsay, W. L. and Norvell, W. A.: 1978, ‘Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper’, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 421–428.Google Scholar
  18. Mclean, O.: 1976, ‘Chemistry of soil aluminium’, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 7(7), 619–636.Google Scholar
  19. Meecham, J. and Bell, L.: 1977, ‘Revegetation of alumina refinery wastes. 1. Properties and amelioration of the materials’, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 17, 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munshower, F. F.: 1994, Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Florida.Google Scholar
  21. Reuter, D. J. and Robinson, J. B.: 1997, Plant Analysis, an Interpretation Manual, Second Edition, CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Richards, L. A.: 1954, Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils, United States Salinity Laboratory, California.Google Scholar
  23. Rowell, D.: 1994, Soil Acidity and Alkalinity in Soil Science: Methods and Applications, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Salopek, B. and Strazisar, J.: 1993, ‘The influences of red mud impoundments on the environment’, Light Metals TMS, 41–44.Google Scholar
  25. Sumner, M. and Naidu, R.: 1998, Sodic Soils: Distribution, Properties, Management, and Environmental Consequences (Topics in Sustainable Agronomy) Oxford University Press Inc, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, G. W.: 1982, ‘Exchangeable cations’, In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Page, A.L. (ed), p. 159–165, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.Google Scholar
  27. Thorne, D.: 1945, ‘Growth and nutrition of tomato plants as influenced by exchangeable sodium, calcium and potassium’, Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 185–189.Google Scholar
  28. Troeh, R. T. and Thompson, L.: 1993, Soils and Soil Fertility, 5th Edition; Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Van Rensburg, L., Maboeta, M. S. and Morgenthal, T. L.: 2004, ‘Rehabilitation of co-disposed diamond tailings: Growth medium rectification procedures and indigenous grass establishment’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, (in press).Google Scholar
  30. Williamson, N. A., Johnson, M. S. and Bradshaw, A. D.: 1982, Mine Wastes Reclamation, Mining Journal Books, London.Google Scholar
  31. Wong, J. and Ho, G.: 1991, ‘Effects of gypsum and sewage sludge amendment on physical properties of fine bauxite residue’, Soil Science 152(5), 326–321.Google Scholar
  32. Wong, J. and Ho, G.: 1993, ‘Use of waste gypsum in the revegetation on red mud deposits: A greenhouse study’, Waste Management and Research 11, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong, J. and Ho, G.: 1994, ‘Effectiveness of acidic industrial wastes for reclaiming fine bauxite refining residue’, Soil Science 158, 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ScienceInstitute of TechnologySligoIreland
  2. 2.Department of Life SciencesUniversity of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations