Advertisement

A combined chemical and phytoremediation method for reclamation of acid mine drainage–impacted soils

  • Abhishek RoyChowdhury
  • Dibyendu SarkarEmail author
  • Rupali Datta
Research Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Production of acid mine drainage (AMD) and acid sulfate soils is one of the most concerning environmental consequences associated with mining activities. Implementation of appropriate post-mining AMD management practices is very important to minimize environmental impacts such as high soil acidity, soil erosion, and metal leachability. The objective of this study was to develop a cost-effective and environment-friendly “green” technology for the treatment of AMD-impacted soils. This study utilized the metal-binding and acid-neutralizing capacity of an industrial by-product, namely drinking water treatment residuals (WTRs), and the extensive root system of a metal hyper-accumulating, fast-growing, non-invasive, high-biomass perennial grass, vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioides L.) to prevent soil erosion. Aluminum (Al)-based and calcium (Ca)-based WTRs were used to treat AMD-impacted soil collected from the Tab-Simco coal mine in Carbondale, IL. Tab-Simco is an abandoned coal mine, with very acidic soil containing a number of metals and metalloids such as Fe, Ni, Zn, Pb, and As at high concentrations. A 4-month-long greenhouse column study was performed using 5% and 10% w/w WTR application rates. Vetiver grass was grown on the soil-WTR mixed media. Turbidity and total suspended solid (TSS) analysis of leachates showed that soil erosion decreased in the soil-WTR-vetiver treatments. Difference in pH of leachate samples collected from control (3.06) and treatment (6.71) columns at day 120 indicated acidity removal potential of this technology. A scaled-up simulated field study was performed using 5% WTR application rate and vetiver. Soil pH increased from 2.69 to 7.2, and soil erosion indicators such as turbidity (99%) and TSS (95%) in leachates were significantly reduced. Results from the study showed that this “green” reclamation technique has the potential to effectively treat AMD-impacted soils.

Keywords

Acid mine drainage Acid sulfate soil Drinking water treatment residuals Vetiver grass Reclamation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

ARC acknowledges the PhD Program in Environmental Management at Montclair State University for providing him Doctoral Assistantship.

Funding information

The study is financially supported by the Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Grant #S12AC20001.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_4785_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Andra SSP (2008) Phytoremediation of lead contaminated soils. PhD Dissertation Thesis-University of Texas at San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  2. Behum PT, Kiser R, Lewis L (2010) Investigation of the acid mine drainage at the Tab-Simco mine, Carbondale, Illinois. In: Proceedings of the 38thAnnual Meeting of the National Association of State Land Reclamationists, Carbondale, IL. September 13-15, 2010Google Scholar
  3. Behum PT, Lefticariu L, Bender KS, Segid YT, Burns AS, Pugh CW (2011) Remediation of coal-mine drainage by a sulfate-reducing bioreactor: a case study from the Illinois coal basin, USA. Appl Geochem 26:S162–S166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behum PT, Lewis L, Kiser R, Lefticariu L (2012) Remediation of acid mine drainage using sulfate-reducing bioreactors—case example: the Tab-Simco passive treatment system. In: Proceedings of the 2012 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Tupelo, MS, June 8-15, 2012Google Scholar
  5. Behum PT, Lefticariu L, Walter E, Kiser R (2013) Passive treatment of coal-mine drainage by a sulfate-reducing bioreactor in the Illinois coal basin. In: Proceedings of the West Virginia Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium, Morgantown, West Virginia, March 26–27, 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Burns AS, Pugh CW, Segid YT, Behum PT, Lefticariu L, Bender KS (2012) Performance and microbial community dynamics of a sulfate-reducing bioreactor treating coal generated acid mine drainage. Biodegradation 23:415–429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-011-9520-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butnan S, Deenik JL, Toomsan B, Antal MJ, Vityakon P (2015) Biochar characteristics and application rates affecting corn growth and properties of soils contrasting in texture and mineralogy. Geoderma 237-238:105–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castaldi P, Silvetti M, Garau G, Demurtas D, Deiana S (2015) Copper (II) and lead (II) removal from aqueous solution by water treatment residues. J Hazard Mater 283:140–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan KY, Zwieten LV, Meszaros I, Downie A, Joseph S (2007) Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Aust J Soil Res 45:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiang YW, Ghyselbrecht K, Santos RM, Martens JA, Swennen R, Cappuyns V et al (2012) Adsorption of multi-heavy metals onto water treatment residuals: sorption capacities and applications. Chem Eng J 200–202(3):405–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.06.070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalton PA, Smith RJ, Truong PNV (1996) Vetiver grass hedges for erosion control on a cropped flood plain: hedge hydraulics. Agric Water Manag 31:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Du Lv, Truong PNV (2003) Soil in southern Vietnam. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Vetiver Conference, Guangzhou, China, October 6–9, 2003Google Scholar
  13. Elkhatib E, Moharem M, Mahdy A, Mesalem M (2017) Sorption, release and forms of mercury in contaminated soils stabilized with water treatment residual nanoparticles. Land Degrad Dev 28:752–761.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson KD, Erickson PM (1988) Pre-Mine Prediction of Acid Mine Drainage. In: Salomons W, Forstner U (eds) Pre-mine prediction of acid mine drainage. In: Dredged Material and Mine Tailings. Copyright by Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardy M, Sarkar D, Makris KC, Datta R (2007) A packed bed reactor system to treat chromium-contaminated shipyard stormwater. ASA-CSSA-SSSA 2007 International Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Nov. 4-8, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. Hardy MA (2008) Retention of heavy metals from acid-sulfur rich waste water by water treatment residuals: a reconnaissance study. Master Thesis. The University of Texas at San Antonio: Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesGoogle Scholar
  17. Klute A (1996) Methods of soil analysis: part 1: physical and mineralogical methods. SSSA Publications, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  18. Makris KC (2004) Long-term stability of sorbed phosphorus by drinking-water treatment residuals: mechanisms and implications. PhD Thesis. Gainseville, FL: University of Florida, Soil and Water Science DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  19. Makris KC, Sarkar D, Datta R (2006) Evaluating a waste by-product as a novel sorbent for arsenic. Chemosphere 64(5):730–741.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.11.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Makris KC, Sarkar D, Parsons JG, Datta R, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2007) Surface arsenic speciation of a drinking water treatment residual using X-ray absorption spectroscopy. J Colloid Interface Sci 311:544–550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2007.02.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Makris KC, Sarkar D, Parsons JG, Datta R, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2009) X-ray absorption spectroscopy as a tool investigating arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) sorption by an aluminum-based drinking water treatment residual. J Hazard Mater 171:980–986.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKeague JA, Brydon JE, Miles NM (1971) Differentiation of forms of extractable iron and aluminum in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 35:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mokolobate M, Haynes R (2002) Comparative liming effect of four organic residues applied to an acid soil. Biol Fertil Soils 35(2):79–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-001-0439-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagar R, Sarkar D, Makris KC, Datta R, Sylvia VL (2009a) Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of arsenic in soil amended with drinking-water treatment residuals. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 59:755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagar R, Sarkar D, Makris KC, Datta R, Sylvia VL (2009b) Bioavailability of arsenic in soil amended with drinking-water treatment residuals using a mouse model. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 57:755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagar R, Sarkar D, Makris KC, Datta R (2010) Effect of solution chemistry on arsenic sorption by Al- and Fe-based drinking-water treatment residuals. Chemosphere 78:1028–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.11.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagar R, Sarkar D, Makris KC, Datta D (2014) Arsenic bioaccessibility and speciation in the soils amended with organoarsenicals and drinking-water treatment residuals based on a long-term greenhouse study. J Hydrol 518(2014):477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagar R, Sarkar D, Punamiya P, Datta D (2015) Drinking water treatment residual amendment lowers inorganic arsenic bioaccessibility in contaminated soils: a long-term study. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2631-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prakash P, SenGupta AK (2003) Selective coagulant recovery from water treatment plant residuals using donnan membrane process. Environ Sci Technol 37:4468–4474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Punamiya P, Sarkar D, Rakhsit S, Elzinga EJ, Datta R (2015) Immobilization of tetracyclines in manure and manure-amended soils using aluminum-based drinking water treatment residuals. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(4):3322–3332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5551-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roongtanakiat N, Tangruangkiat S, Meesat R (2007) Utilization of vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) for removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters. ScienceAsia 33:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. RoyChowdhury A, Sarkar D, Datta R (2015) Remediation of acid mine drainage-impacted water. Curr Pollution Rep 1:131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-015-0011-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. RoyChowdhury A, Sarkar D, Deng Y, Datta R (2016) Assessment of soil and water contamination at the Tab-Simco coal mine: a case study. Mine Water Environ 36(2):248–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-016-0401-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. RoyChowdhury A, Datta R, Sarkar D (2018a) Heavy metal pollution and remediation. In: Torok B, Dransfield T (eds) Green Chemistry. Elsevier, pp 359–373, ISBN.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809270-5.00015-7. isbn:9780128092705
  35. RoyChowdhury A, Sarkar D, Datta R (2018b) Preliminary studies on potential remediation of acid mine drainage-impacted soils by amendment with drinking-water treatment residuals. Remediat J 28(3):75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. RoyChowdhury A, Sarkar D, Datta R (2018c) Removal of acidity and metals from acid mine drainage-impacted water using industrial byproducts. Environ Manag 63:148–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1112-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarkar D, Makris KC, Vandanapu V, Datta R (2007) Arsenic immobilization in soils amended with drinking-water treatment residuals. Environ Pollut 146:414–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Segid YT (2010) Evaluation of the Tab-Simco acid mine drainage treatment system: water chemistry, performance and treatment processes. Master Thesis. Southern Illinois, Carbondale: Department of Geology, Southern Illinois University CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  39. Shu,W (2003) Exploring the potential utilization of vetiver in treating acid mine drainage (AMD). In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Vetiver Conference. October 6–9, 2003, Guangzhou, China. Retrieved from: www.vetiver.org.
  40. Smith PA (2002) Characterization of an acid mine drainage site in southern Illinois. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual National Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining Reclamation, Lexington, KY, June 9-13, 2002Google Scholar
  41. Sohi SP (2012) Carbon storage with benefits. Science 338:1034–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sparks D (1996) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical methods. SSSA Publications, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  43. Tay DYY, Fujinuma R, Wendling LA (2017) Drinking water treatment residual use in urban soils: balancing metal immobilization and phosphorus availability. Geoderma 305:113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teutscherova N, Vazquez E, Masaguer A, Navas M, Scow KM, Schmidt R, Benito M (2017) Comparison of lime- and biochar-mediated pH changes in nitrification and ammonia oxidizers in degraded acid soil. Biol Fertil Soils 53(7):811–821.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1222-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Truong P (2000) The global impact of vetiver grass technology on the environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Vetiver Conference. Thailand, January 18–22, 2000Google Scholar
  46. Truong, PN, Hart, B (2001) Vetiver system for wastewater treatment. Technical Bulletin No. 2001/2. Pacific Rim Vetiver Network. Office of the Royal Development Projects Board, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  47. Truong P, Carlin G, Cook F, Thomas E (2003) Vetiver grass hedges for water quality improvement in acid sulfate soils, Queensland, Australia. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Vetiver Conference. October 6-9, 2003, pp. 182–193Google Scholar
  48. Truong P, Danh LT (2015) The vetiver system for improving water quality: prevention and treatment of contaminated water and land. Second Edition. The Vetiver Network InternationalGoogle Scholar
  49. USDA Forest Service (1993) Acid mine drainage from mines on the national forests, a management challenge. U.S. Forest Service Publication, 1505:1–12Google Scholar
  50. USDA Forest Service (2005) Wildland waters. Issue 4. Winter 2005; FS-812. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.fed.us
  51. USEPA (1994) Technical document: acid mine drainage prediction. EPA 530-R-94-036. NTIS PB94-201829. December, 1994Google Scholar
  52. USEPA (1996) Test methods for evaluating solid waste, SW 846, 3rd edn. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang C, Zhao Y, Pei Y (2012) Investigation on reusing water treatment residuals to remedy soil contaminated with multiple metals in Baiyin, China. J Hazard Mater 237–238:240–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.08.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yuan JH, Xu RK, Wang N, Li JY (2011) Amendment of acid soils with crop residues and biochars. Pedosphere. 21(3):302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zwieten LV, Rose T, Herridge D, Kimber S, Rust J, Cowie A et al (2015) Enhanced biological N2 fixation and yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in an acid soil following biochar addition: dissection of causal mechanisms. Plant Soil 395:7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2427-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental and Ocean EngineeringStevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations